Recently I asked myself a re-occurring question, "What was it about Shimabuku Tatsuo that allowed students with 16 months of testing keep with their studies for the rest of their lives?" I've asked myself this many times, but this time something new occurred to me.
And it's an answer I've probably known since my beginning.
Yes he was training USMC members all of whom passed through basic training,
knew how to follow orders and had to take the step to start training in a
system of study they likely knew nothing about prior to their service on
Okinawa. But I'm sure we've all had some natural students who got everything
very quickly, then trained a year or two before stopping training and they
never went on to practice for the rest of their lives.
What I believe one factor that contributed to this happening was the
teaching methodology Shimabuku Tatsuo used in his dojo.
Mr. Lewis described training on Okinawa in Agena, 1960-1961, as follows. There
was no structured class led by Shimabuku Sensei. There was some structured
training offered to new students. Some would show up at the dojo and spend the
night chatting away. Others would throw some water on the burning concrete
floor and step out and begin practicing. There were seniors training, Okinawan's
and American's, to o. Shimabuku Sensei
would observe the training and if he was satisfied he might choose to approach
the student training and show them the next section of their kata three times,
and if they didn't get it he'd go back to watch the class.
They weren't trained to follow group class training. They trained by their will
and practice, worked with others, observed successes in a sharing environment.
IMO Shimabuku Sensei was watching their progress for their training level and
was rewarding correct efforts at that level with new material.
Mr. Murray in Okinawa in Agena in 1971-1972, training as a new sho-dan
experienced much the same. Then the USMC training was conduced at Camp Foster
and most of the students were Okinawan's. The Okinawan students would come to
train when their work day concluded. Mrs. Shimabuku would have tea prepared,
and people would work the makiwara, practice kata or kobudo as they wished.
When Charles was learning new sai kata everyone in the dojo would pitch in to
help him get it correctly. Shimabuku Sensei didn't conduct classes but oversaw
training and shared when he felt someone was ready for more material. Charles
also had Shinso personally get involved in his training, sharing instruction in
chinkuchi.
In my opinion this environment fosters greater student involvement to their
art. They each become role models and
gain their material in a multi-layered manner from the instructor and from the
others too. Leaving Okinawa the early Marines didn't just have techniques and
kata, but the shared experiences of working with the entire dojo, the
experience of being new, to being a role model themselves. For those that worked at their training I
believe this environment fostered their short term studies.
When I trained in Salisbury, Md. with Mr. Lewis, his dojo methodelogy was a
modified version of Shimabuku Sensei's approach. Everywhere else I trained I
never experienced this instruction model, instead it was always instructor led
classes (which of course in a new dojo there is no other possible option).
In fact when I began training youth I had to use the instructor class led model
and still use it today. For youth I think it is the best way to run a program.
When in 1985 I was able to start my adult program I again used the instructor
class led model, and because of the range of practices I've taught kept doing
so, but in the recent past started to think how my instructors shared their
training on Okinawa and am now exploring changing to a modification of the
Okinawan Isshinryu training methodology.
Then it occurred to me to check with a friend in another Kyan lineage of Shorin
training, who trained on Okinawa too. His instructor, a friend of Shimabuku
Sensei, also used the same methodology and described it how Kyan taught. In
fact most of the first generation of Kyan students also taught that way, though
some 2nd generation have moved to a more instructor led model, following
Shotokans' efforts. Things always change.
He believes his instructor is not interested in having a student trying to work
beyond their own level (as in following higher level of execution) and instead
focus on their current level of understanding.
Looking to Kyan and his experiences beginning prior to 1900, it ties into the
description Funakoshi Ginchin gave for his earliest training, just his
instructor (s) watching him perform his kata over and over. (Note my friend
also explains Kyan only taught kata, but encouraged his students to work on
their own understanding how techniques could be used based on their level of
training.
I believe I make a case Shimabuku Sensei used the instruction methodology he
received from Kyan Sensei and this may well have been a contributing factor to
Isshinryu's development beyond Okinawa.
Some initial thoughts ………. Victor
Hi Victor
>Is this simliar to the methodology
of dojo manegement 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 dont know if I can, but
here goes.
I cant 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 doesnt
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 dont 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 havent 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
No comments:
Post a Comment