A few if you will.

- Why did Okinawans develop solo kata?

- Why do solo kata contain chambered punches as opposed to keeping your hands in a more logical position?

- Why do solo kata contain little to no movements that are reflected in actual combat?

(1). There are people there, it is just that you have not reached the higher level of conciesnous to see them.

(2). They are not chambered punches, but represent a hidden technique which I cannot reveal, so as for it to remain hidden.

(3). The movement is there, it is only attained when you have reached the required level of "empty mind" and besides Okinawans really had small back yards.

(1). There are people there, it is just that you have not reached the higher level of conciesnous to see them.

(2). They are not chambered punches, but represent a hidden technique which I cannot reveal, so as for it to remain hidden.

(3). The movement is there, it is only attained when you have reached the required level of "empty mind" and besides Okinawans really had small back yards.
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/mctape/Whore_mouth_cat.jpg

Kata is not shadow boxing, and should not be used for shadow boxing.

Kata is not yoga, and should not be used for yoga.

Kata is not conditioning, and should not be used instead of better means of conditioning.

Kata is the syllabus, you have to come up with the lesson plan.

Performing kata is a waste of time.


From the Tae Kwon Leap guy... :cry:

(1). There are people there, it is just that you have not reached the higher level of conciesnous to see them.

(2). They are not chambered punches, but represent a hidden technique which I cannot reveal, so as for it to remain hidden.

(3). The movement is there, it is only attained when you have reached the required level of "empty mind" and besides Okinawans really had small back yards.

And this, Kempo, is why there is no reason for me to waste my time. People have more fun with their lollercausts and attacking their strawmen rather than actually trying to look outside their narrow view of things.

As a methodology of recording a syllabus that did not involve writing it down. This prevented the possibility of an outsider "stealing your scrolls" and learning your methods. Also, the CMA influence as mentioned above.

Gotcha. Was my thinking, at least with Okinawan and CMA forms/katas.




Solo kata do not contain chambered punches.

Um, from your own posting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrhFuHpj0MA

I see quite a bit of chambering in there. Though granted not as bad as other forms such as one pinan and other Shotokan type kata.



Becaus you don't know what you're looking at.

The great majority of techniques in kata are the same standard striking, throwing, and locking methods found in jujutsu, shiao jiao, chin-na, etc. The majority of the throws in the kata I know are also found in Judo...with only minor variance.

Well in my experience with real fighters who actually fight, one never throws someone while in such a broad stance. You never strike someone without using your hips. You don't try and lock someone out unless you have them immobilized (meaning 9/10 times you are doing it in a newaza position, as opposed to standing armlocks and the like that can be easily escaped and countered).

Is there video somewhere, or could you make a video showing the supposed real application of some of these forms? I've seen loads of kata bunkai, some of it good, some of it "eh" and most of it garbage. Why do you feel what you have learned is any different?

I see quite a bit of chambering in there. Though granted not as bad as other forms such as one pinan and other Shotokan type kata.

That was a Pinan kata.

And no, there's no chambering.

1) Again, solo performance, "dancing", is not the intention or the purpose of a kata.

2) When they taught you "chambering"...they taught you wrong.


Well in my experience with real fighters who actually fight, one never throws someone while in such a broad stance.

Stop thinking literally.

Again, curriculum, not lesson plan.


You never strike someone without using your hips.

Um...duh?


You don't try and lock someone out unless you have them immobilized (meaning 9/10 times you are doing it in a newaza position, as opposed to standing armlocks and the like that can be easily escaped and countered).

There is a difference between a submission and a lock. The majority of locks in koryu jujutsu and other arts were not ending techniques, but rather transitions or assists, ie. putting pressure on a joint to assist in a throw.

The idea of putting someone in a standing submission and holding them there is a pretty modern one.


Is there video somewhere, or could you make a video showing the supposed real application of some of these forms?

If I had a video camera.

And no, there's no chambering. When they taught you "chambering"...they taught you wrong.Errant, what do you mean by "chambering," then? It seems to be different than the common idea of a chambered punch.

--Joe

Errant, what do you mean by "chambering," then? It seems to be different than the common idea of a chambered punch.

--Joe

I don't mean chambering.

Let me illucidate this point for you.

There is no term meaning "chambering" in the sense you mean in Okinawan or Japanese.

You were taught wrong.

I don't mean chambering.

Let me illucidate this point for you.

There is no term meaning "chambering" in the sense you mean in Okinawan or Japanese.

You were taught wrong.Given my lack of knowledge regarding the Japanese and Okinawan languages, I'll have to yield to you on that point. However, regardless of how one describes the positioning and the mechanics of a "chambered punch," those positioning and mechanics are the basis of punching technique in the traditional Okinawan styles.

Funakoshi's Karate-Do Kyohan, Nakayama's Dynamic Karate, and Kanazawa's Black Belt Karate: The Intensive Course, just to name a few sources, all describe the action and mechanics of chambering a punch, and place an intense deal of importance on these mechanics in producing a proper attack. If you're going to say that we were "taught wrong," I'd ask you to explain your meaning a bit further, since these extremely prominent teachers of the art seem to differ with your take.

--Joe

Given my lack of knowledge regarding the Japanese and Okinawan languages, I'll have to yield to you on that point. However, regardless of how one describes the positioning and the mechanics of a "chambered punch," those positioning and mechanics are the basis of punching technique in the traditional Okinawan styles.

Funakoshi's Karate-Do Kyohan, Nakayama's Dynamic Karate, and Kanazawa's Black Belt Karate: The Intensive Course, just to name a few sources, all describe the action and mechanics of chambering a punch, and place an intense deal of importance on these mechanics in producing a proper attack. If you're going to say that we were "taught wrong," I'd ask you to explain your meaning a bit further, since these extremely prominent teachers of the art seem to differ with your take.

--Joe

What he said....







Stop thinking literally.

Again, curriculum, not lesson plan.

If the curriculum contains throwing, and you are recording the curriculum plan in motions rather than writing, why do such a crappy interpretation of the lesson? Why would they do it differently than they actually practiced while in training? Or is it that their throws were really just crappy, and didn't get refined until they cross-trained with Judoka?



There is a difference between a submission and a lock. The majority of locks in koryu jujutsu and other arts were not ending techniques, but rather transitions or assists, ie. putting pressure on a joint to assist in a throw.

The idea of putting someone in a standing submission and holding them there is a pretty modern one.

I'll give you that. I cannot say whether this is revisionism or not, so I'll concede my own ignorance to your word.

those positioning and mechanics are the basis of punching technique in the traditional Okinawan styles.

Wrong.


Funakoshi's Karate-Do Kyohan, Nakayama's Dynamic Karate, and Kanazawa's Black Belt Karate: The Intensive Course, just to name a few sources, all describe the action and mechanics of chambering a punch, and place an intense deal of importance on these mechanics in producing a proper attack.

Shotokan is not Okinawan karate, and is responsible for the majority of "kata dancing" we see today.


If you're going to say that we were "taught wrong," I'd ask you to explain your meaning a bit further, since these extremely prominent teachers of the art seem to differ with your take.

None of those teachers ever learned Karate as a fighting art, but rather as a character building budo. You've gotta let go of what you think you know. Funakoshi never even knew what bunkai was. Kanazawa and Nakayama were Japanese, not Okinawan.

If the curriculum contains throwing, and you are recording the curriculum plan in motions rather than writing, why do such a crappy interpretation of the lesson?

You do it in gross, over-exagerrated motions so that minor details are enhanced, rather than minimized.


Or is it that their throws were really just crappy, and didn't get refined until they cross-trained with Judoka?

I would imagine this to be the case a bit as well. Look at the difference between Judo and Koryu jujutsu.

In very simple terms, Funakoshi never taught T3h Re4l Okinawan Te.

He was interested primarily in education (including character, as Errant mentioned), and his forms were closer to mass, simple warm-up exercises than technique records.

This influenced much of what's known as Japanese Karate-Do, though you can see the tension between Okinawan and Japanese MA in styles like Goju-Ryu, which retain aspects of both.

Let me illucidate this point for you.


Don't you mean "elucidate"? If' you're going to try to use big words, make sure they're not too big for you.



Tithead.

Tithead.

Fartknocker.

You, Errant ain't elucidatin' - he be ILLucidatin', hata.