Sean Davis,
A very interesting set of
questions. Here’s my take.
Point one
Master Smith states that Isshin-Ryu teaching changed drastically in 1958. It
sounds like it was made into more of a package version for 18 month tours. I
can only hypothesize of course. But the bottom line is that this was a
curriculum made for men, very, very, very hard men. This is point one.
- Victor
Well I can’t prove it
definitely, but I think a lot of the change Shimabuku Sensei made for the
Marines was to speed up the course of instruction. I’ve never heard that his
course curricula was vastly different for the Okinawans, except they spent more
time developing skill at each level. But
it appears he considered many different ideas about his art at differing times,
and with no documentation, this remains a theoretical study doesn’t it.
Point two
Fast forward forty years. A similar, simpler curriculum can be learned by an
average adult shodan in 4-5 years. The only problem is that most Isshin-Ryu
students are now children.
- Victor
You’re making a very
interesting point here. Now I’m a child instruction specialist (25 years at
this point), and I assume you’re making this from the perspective of the
commercial dojo. Does anybody have any figures what the current ratio to
children to adults is in Isshinryu.
Perhaps this would be something to accumulate. For example in my
program, we keep 25 youth in the program, where as my adult program consists of
10. But as I am atypical teaching for free at the Boys and Girls Club, have no
overhead to absorb, I wouldn’t consider my group a standard to compare against.
Point three
Go back 85 years. Gichen Funakoshi takes what is pretty much the Shorin part of
Isshin-Ryu and makes it into a cirriculum that can be taught to any age, for
the rank of shodan. The real kata study comes after shodan in Shotokan.
I am versed in Shotokan (I know the Heian katas and Tekki Shodan well enough to
earn my shodan in most Shotokan schools, but why?) and find the organization of
SHotokan by Funakoshi to be ingenious. Not only did he come up with a
curriculum that can produce quality karateka at any age (Given quality
instruction of course), but he saved the "REAL MEAT" of the kata for
black belt studies in somewhat of a module form - an idea about 85 years
ahead of its time.
- Victor
Sean, I think some
distinctions need to be addressed in this.
First the Pinan (later the
Heian) Kata were developed by Itosu, for secondary school (high school)
students, and I’m of the opinion (with some others) likely to prepare them for
military service, following group drills. In time some of the Okinawan systems
adopted them as beginning forms (though the Pinan aren’t necessarily simple
techniques).
Second, when Funakoshi
Ginchin transplanted his karate to Japan he tended to concentrate on the
University market. Even he found his ‘Heian’ forms not the best place for
beginners and developed a different series (Takyokyu Kata) to try and bridge
the gap. Likewise he and the entire JKA
establishment changed the core content of his original Okinawan art, to stress
physical development over the original combat intent. Application study was essentially ignored and
sport karate came into existence as a result.
The JKA curricula utilized most of the traditional kata, after Sho-Dan
for more advanced study.
In the sense, the curricula
became very defined (at least through Sho-Dan), perhaps their efforts did pave
the way for more structured learning. But even in the 60’s, I recall reading
C.W. Nicole’s book on his training in Japan, and there were different kata
requirements to different people preparing for Sho-Dan as I recall it.
Apparently the structure on
Okinawa was always more free form. Instructors would choose and restructure
their programs for different groups and different individuals. But they weren’t
running a structured course content, either, instead focusing on the student,
or group situation, as an individual need.
I think this is a careful
difference to consider. Should a system be focused on the group or the
individual?
Consider Nagamine Shoshin, a
student of Kyan Sensei. His curricula doesn’t include Seisan, because he had
previous training, and as Kyan Sensei used Seisan as his first form, he likely
felt Nagamine was advanced enough that he didn’t need it. Then when Nagamine
taught, he didn’t look for kata he didn’t study himself.
Different Okinawan groups
sought different methods to prepare new students. Miyagi Sensei eventually
developed beginning forms as did Nagamine Sensei. At one point in the mid 1930’s a group of
Okinawan karateka commissioned some new basic kata and 10 were created.
Apparently they were trying to find an across the age answer to China’s Tai Chi
group instruction. Their 10 kata were documented in Nakasone’s Karate
Encyclopedia but not formally adopted by any Okinawan group ,though I’ve
received Shotokan training which was based in large part on those kata studies.
But in that case, not as formal kata, but and advanced Dan drill.
I suspect in the Okinawan
systems, from the 1950’s onward, the instruction became more systematized, but
perhaps somewhat differently from Shotokan’s developments. The unanswered
question is which form results in the better training for which (if not all)
age groups?
Point four
I believe that with my whole heart/mind (Hmmm, heard that somewhere before...)
that TS developed IR and gave the ranks he gave to particular personalities for
a reason! He knew that they would take it and run, thereby prevent a deadbeat
son from killing his baby. He gave them a curriculum that taught them as much
as they could handle, and from what I understand -- the main ones got a lot
more than others.
Isshin-Ryu was constantly changing under TS and growing. Why has it evolved so
little since 1975? Why is the curriculum still the same for children as it was
for soldiers so many years ago?
- Victor
Isn’t this the $64,000
question? Was Isshinryu to evolve? Was
Isshinryu to remain fixed? I don’t know
the answer to that one, in that I can only speak for myself.
First, I doubt there is any Isshinryu dojo that hasn’t made some changes from
the original instruction formats. Over the years, many, many individuals have
commented on how they’ve changed things to teaching children. From breaking
Seisan into parts, to adding other kata, such as the Pinan/Heian ones.
The first 5 years I taught
youth, my curricula was pretty much the same as I studied, beginning with
Seisan. Training in many other systems,
I would on occasion, as an exercise, use different kata to see how students
took to them. Then relocating to Derry 20 years ago, I restructured my kyu
program into its current format, with the addition of other kata or drills,
because I found what I consider a better answer for what I’m doing to prepare
my students for Isshinryu.
So I changed things, and I
know I’m not alone. My Isshinryu is still Isshinryu, based on the somewhat
variable Isshinryu of my instructors. I’m satisfied that I meet my students
needs and development. I’ve also continued to learn a great deal about my art
over the years. Part of keeping my
program very small allows me to focus on individual students development and
the art.
Recently I was watching a
Kata only tournament I sponsored about 12 years ago. Same curricula I teach
today. I remember that day, how proud I was that my students did such an
excellent job on their kata presentation, as my students always have. But
watching that competition today, I see how much differently I teach their kata
technique, and how much more concentrated I’ve changed their movement dynamics.
My opinion is as you work on
your art and your instruction, you continue to learn how to present it more
effectively. With time your instruction changes, matures, evolves, whatever
words you wish, and your student working the same art present it differently
too.
I can’t paint that what I do
represent Isshinryu in general. Only observe what I’ve done. But I suspect
Isshinryu changes and is changing at a pace many don’t see in many, many
different ways, as well as those who don’t change are also keeping to their
ways, too.
Summary
Is the reason that a "Junior black belt" curriculum, that is less
demanding than that adult curriculum, not widely used yet, the lack of
communication in the past? Keep in mind what a junior black belt is; it is
Shodan-ho; not shodan!
I still cannot see any reason to teach a child all of Seisan, other than, that
is what my teacher did and so do I. It is Isshin-Ryu, so I do it. I am
proud when they do it, but why, other than this how my Daddy did it?
Terry Brian sent me some info on his High School curriculum. It took a very
long time to develop and was the only way he could teach in the Denver High
Schools. They would not allow him to teach children without a proper curriculum
that went beyond learn a kata, get a belt!
I am thinning more and more that I OWE MY STUDENTS a solid four year curriculum
that they will get them to shodan-ho in four years. It is enough for retention,
yet still maintains quality and gets them ready for the real meat.
I have 125 students. In LA, the small dojo is dead, you cannot survive as a
small entity out here, period. With the inevitability of larger programs
however, is the need for a more systematized program. I believe that a four
year shodan-ho course is the way to go.
People understand the idea of four years in education. They understand that
they have to pass the subjects, not just show up to class. They understand that
each year will get harder.
I know not everyone will agree with this, I am simply seeing a need to bring
Isshin-Ryu into the future. The kids programs have worked fine so far;
but we need to keep on evolving and I wonder what others think. I know that
Masters like Adams, Cooling and Adler are working together to bring IR into the
future, I guess this is my piece of the workload and would like feedback.
- Victor
I don’t know whether a four
year curriculum will bring Isshinryu forward. I’ve noticed that on the whole my
green belts (youth) are equivalent to what other programs are calling Sho-dan
Ho. My instructors and I discuss the issue, but we feel holding to the path
we’ve developed still seems sound.
The concept of Junior black
belts isn’t necessarily bad, if they continue to progress in their studies. I
know of one local school, with 8 year old Sho-dan Ho students and 15 year old
Junior 6th degree black belts, who can retest for Ni-Dan adult at
18.
I’ve seen adult kung fu
programs which have halved their black belt equivalent requirements and kept
more students training by the time they reach their older black belt
level. I’d consider that a success. It
did bother some of the older instructors feeling things were made to easy, but
time taught it brought greater success developing students.
Rank always has been a
variable concept, and most Okinawan systems over 50 years ago weren’t even
awarding Black Belts. Changing the
concept for youth instruction isn’t committing a sin, especially if thought is
put into it.
I just believe it will
continue to make it more work to understand what each of us does.
Conclusion
A shodan is a shodan is a shodan.
Hmmmmm, I wonder. BTW my kyu
curriculum can be found at my website www.funkydragon.com/bushi
*No Longer in Existance, my blog serves
the same purpose today.
Pleasantly,
Victor
No comments:
Post a Comment