AGKK_Karateka

What type of punches exercises?

An interesting thread that highlights the many interpretations and definitions of what is a TMA. I thought some dictionary definitions might be of interest in this debate (sourced from http://dictionary.reference.com/). Traditional: Observant of tradition; attached to old customs; old-fashioned Or Pertaining to time-honoured orthodox doctrines In my opinion the first definition of “Traditional” would be what TMA get criticised for (clinging to traditions because they have always been clung too, more faith than science, etc). The second definition is "more on message" with reasoning that a TMA was originally developed to work. Orthodox: Adhering to the accepted or traditional and established faith, especially in religion Or Sound in opinion or doctrine In my opinion the first definition of Orthodox (and most entries in any dictionary) are more relevant to faith and religion. Whereas the second appears to be much more relevant to a debate on laws and logic especially when combined with the definition of doctrine being "A rule or principle, especially when established by precedent" My two cents.... Much criticism directed at TMA is based on poor training methods that is a historical legacy of the "modernisation" of karate in the first half of the 20th Century (big classes, drilling to numbers, follow the leader, etc) and ignorance. Sometimes clinging on to old customs or old-fashioned views for no reason can hide the loss of valuable knowledge. My approach to TMA is to cut out the "faith" and look for the "principals" that can be established and applied.

This is an excellent article and thread. My only question would be where can more information on experiemental approaches to training be found?

I spent a couple of saturday afternoons training with Master Steve Morris 8/9-years ago. I agree 100% with Truthseeker: I once came across a website of his on orginal form boxing unfortunately it is no longer online.

IMO the Bush administration appears to be playing a high risk geo-political game for very high stakes. It appears to me that the current US attitude to international relations has effectively weakened most, if not all multinational organisations like the UN (not especially a popular institution with US voters) and alliances like Nato, or relations with partners like the EU, Russia, China, etc. I think that the unilateral position (we have the might therefore we are right) taken by the Bush administration can be seen by non-aligned countries as an ugly aspect of US foreign policy and a dangerous precident for the use of force regardless of the UN or "world opinion". Since 1945 the international community, with the USA playing the leading pivotal role, has been built up a stable framework to address world issues. This framework is by no means perfect or effective but better than a world with many "go it alone" unilateral wannabe world powers. Talk of post-Saddam transitional US military regimes (without the fig leaf of UN involvement) in iraq have echoes of 19th Century "unofficial empire". Tied aid from a donar country can be seen as an effective instrument of control again grist to the mill for neo-imperialist alarmists. Post 911 nearly all (99.999%) of the world opinion was firmly on the side of the Bush administration. The war on terror had most nations on this planet signing up to work (and fight) alongside the US. In the 18-months since then in the run up to war with Iraq, so many bridges have been burnt and goodwill soured. The use of non-diplomatic straight talk "You are with us or against us" messages on Iraq has lead to only a few allies of the US commiting anything more than lip service to the whole endeavour. BTW elections in UK and Australia may see a strong anti-war voter backlash if the war drags on and does not go according to plan. A good question for the future would be when/if US goes "isolationist" i.e. walks away from direct involvement in world affairs (cutting aid, etc) and with no multinational forum with any strength what then? A new crop of despots and dictators and greater injustice? The USA is a world power without equal, but one that is no longer talking quietly and carrying a big stick. The next US administration post-Bush and post-Iraq war will have alot of reconstructive diplomatic work to do in what may well be a "multi-polar" world. Thats my two cents...

Hello, I hope that this does not put the cat amongst the pidgeons, but what exactly is the purpose of this post? If I have read Rich's original post correctly there are three elements identified: the practioner, the style, the training methods and methodology. The question for debate is removing two of the three (practioner and training) and isolating the third to indicate what would be the most effective style. I think this debate needs further refinement as you could easily have two instructors in the same style but one would teach a more effective form than the other or argue that without practioners and training you do not have an effective style anyway, etc. The debate could be more focused on how can the elements of individual/knowledge/training be brought towards a more effective form of karate, rather than individual vs knowledge base or training vs knowledge base. IMO I believe it is the training methods and methodology that would dictate a truly effective style of karate. Kata would emphasise the curriculum or range of techniques & technical principals. Learning kata applications through rigorous testing would be key to "effectiveness" with associated activities like fitness, sparring, and conditioning being important. I hope my post makes some sense

Kyle-san This is a very insightful article and I hope the end of term paper is well received. I have only lightly touched upon the philoshical and spiritual traditions associated with martial arts, a couple of books and the odd discussion. As you have studied buddhism as a subject perhaps you could shed some light for me on a couple of questions or point me in the right direction for further reading. I have read a little on Taoism and to my mind there seems to be some echo in Zen teachings (and vice versa). Is there any recorded interchange or developmental influence on one from the other? I am a traditional karate student and many of the higher katas have numbers as names. I know there is some buddhist significance to 108, 36, 3, etc. What I have read has been scant on the subject would you know of any good books that would reveal more about this aspect? Thanks and good luck.

Not when you go martial arts training with your wife...

Very interesting article. I assume the martial arts club as commercial enterprise faces the greater risk of litigious and ignorant/misguided/closed attitudes from paying customers or their parents. I am a member of a club with a large junior student base. The head instructor is an experienced school teacher and places strong emphasis on the young students having the correct attitude at home, in the dojo and at school. There is an interesting thread on this forum called "Karate and Character" that touches upon ethics and other standards of behaviour in martial arts training: http://www.karateforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=6654&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=

IMO any activity that challenges the boundaries of any individual’s mental or physical comfort zone would be both character building and rewarding on some level. Karate (or any martial art) is loaded with various misconceptions for the uninitiated unlike other challenging activities (like sport, or music, etc). I suppose people start training in the martial arts with images of Bruce Lee in their head, or pick up the guitar to play like Jimi Hendrix, a cross between guiding star and willow’o’wisp for many. When someone does get exposed to the real and multifaceted activity so many various and valid labels can be applied that would make the experience a revelation. I do not think karate is more life affirming or character building then any other challenging activity, it simply happens to be one “real multifaceted activity” that I have discovered for myself. I do think that karate should always be focused on its self defence roots (like learning how to fly is focused on piloting aircraft). However it’s not the destination (being able to defend yourself) that is important, rather the scenic journey and serendipity of self-knowledge along the way. On a personal level karate training has made me more patient, accepting and philosophical in my life. PS: the word for today is serendipity

Hi, I did not mean to be cryptic The principals I refer to in my earlier post are not profound or deep. They are quite obvious and simple. As karate students we are all students of how the human body works and interacts with the world around it, to be more specific a violent competitive situation where the golden rule would be “hit without being hit.” In my opinion science should always before superstition and causality being the basis of learning techniques and their application. The dojo is more than a physical space it is a state of mind. Every early morning run, stretch session, or exercises workout is another step on our path towards greater self-knowledge, awareness and capability. Actively learning about karate does not mean wearing white (or black) gi and paying subscription fees to an association, achieving rank, fame and glory. Karate training is not a twice a week recreational activity or point scoring at tournaments or subscribing to an obscure but unproved belief in series of physical techniques but a simple way of living… If you are overweight and wish to loose the excess kg's you have to make real changes to lifestyle and habit to have a direct, long lasting, meaningful and measurable effect (not subscribe to latest and greatest fad diet). I realized at that time (many years ago) that to train in karate properly required a level of complete commitment that I was not ready to give so I decided to walk away. The following quote taken from the mediations of Marcus Aurelius summaries better to me a real principal of karate: Give your heart to the trade that you have learnt, and draw refreshment from it. Let the rest of your days be spent as one who has whole-heartedly committed his all to the gods, and henceforth no man’s master or slave. In karate the old adage of “you only get out what you put in” is true.

Ninjamaster I can empathise with your views. I started training in a traidtional karate style in my teenage years attending a dojo with purpose built facilities and a head instructor who had been trained Japan. This was no “McDojo”. But one day I met an inspirational “real live” master. This guy sought no martial arts magazine artricles, or built karate schools, or wanted to create a new fighting system to be passed on down the ages or even encouraged new students to train with him. He started his training in the same karate style I studied and over the decades studied numerious styles and different traditions all the while traveling his own path towards greater knowledge. Myth and legend were blown away and the insights that were shared changed my way of thinking about karate completely. My reaction was so intense that I made a mental descision that if I could not make my own path studying under real principals then my training would always be fake or phony on some level. At that time I chose to walk away. Only within the last year have I resummed karate training, again in the same traditional karate style but this time round I am applying the principals.

This forum contains lots of valuable information on other Martial Arts styles, their philosphies, principals and techniques. Often crtiticism of karate is often focused on perceived missing or grey areas of technical knowledge within the “canon” of karate knowledge. However that is a mistaken view in my opinion, as principals and techniques in many kata would fill those “gaps”. Kata is fundamental to karate and preceeds adoption of uniforms, grades, tournements, Okinawan cultural interpretations, Japanesee budo culture, western street/sport influences, etc. Kata in my mind is a teaching exercise, not a mysterious magical formula, but an effective way to learn. I apologise for the length of this post but to give my own take on things I will use the following story to hopefully provide an insight. I attend a traditional karate dojo. A couple of weeks a Sandan (3rd dan) was talking to a 1st Kyu (brown belt) in the changing room before a training session. The discussion was on the cyclical nature of methods, drills and emphasis of training. The Sandan had obtained his Shodan (1st dan) back in the early 70's and had started training in the 60's and has seen fashions in training come and go. He summarised to the 1st Kyu that there are three types of karate; what happens in the dojo, on the mats at a tournament and on the street. The discussion was brief due to finishing of the previous class and the summary was that the three types could be described as completely separate and almost unrelated with only a few techniques that were compatible in all areas. This statement could be taken as the first salvo in a debate on discussing the merits of which out of the three types of karate is 'valid' or 'worthy' or 'real' karate. Many martial artists go down this path and end up going up their own backsides. What this discussion really highlights is the challenge of effective martial arts training. That is how best to make the biomechanical principals and their applied techniques work in any violent combative situation. This is of course regardless of location (dojo, tournament or street). So on face value these three arenas of karate look as alike as chalk and cheese but they are more like comparing a lump of coal and a diamond. The real knowledge is a working appreciation of how the atoms bond together. A kick for example is a kick regardless of surroundings. The biomechanics of the human leg and the principals governing a kick are constant. The variables are tactical in nature like timing, space, target, and desired effect and positioning. The major risk of tailoring training to specific techniques for situational applications is over specialisation and consequent limitations on wider understanding and addaptabity of applications. All forms of organised fighting have rules of engagement that would mean preconditioned responses in controled situations due to the nature and number of the variables at play. Some are more 'real' than others and that simply entails a wider range of possible techniques or appliations are accepted but all share the common weakness of controlled situations (two people, enclosed space, physically and mentally prepared, rules, referee, etc). Effective training should embrace the physical conditioning of the human body, the development and understanding of the biomechnical advantages of techniques and the testing of applications of those techniques in a 'safe' controlled environment. My position would be simply that all three arenas of Karate (dojo, tournament or street) are different in the situations themselves are but remain the same on an elemental level. They furfil the purposes of testing ground, laboratory and battleground for karate. The purpose of any martial art is to lengthen one's own life not shorten it and the primary focus of training is to develop a working understanding of the biomechanical principals and their applied techniques for any violent combative situation. Kata is but one teaching exercise of karate but to my mind a very important one. Kata should be learnt, appreciated, understood, applied, adapted and finally dropped by the student. In the cyclical nature of things over time the student would begin again…..

In the foreward to Patrick McCarthy's "The Bible of Karate: Bubishi" the historical case for traditional Karate kata being developed from Quan (or forms) taught (developed?) in Southern China during the Quing dynasty before being transferred to Okinawa is described. The traditional Karate kata often have numbers for names i.e. Sanchin [3] Seisan [13] Seipai [18] Sanseru [36] Suparinpei [108]. I presume that these quan would have influenced and have been influenced by the various Southern Chinese styles (including Win Chun?). I assume that the similarities would be based on the fundamental principals contained in the kata (the form being a vehicle for understanding dynamic knowledge). The more modern Karate katas were developed to organise, promote and culturally develop a Japanese way (hence the many "at glance" differences between Japanese, Okinawan and Chinese arts).

Gogen Yamaguchi founded an international Karate organization named Goju-Kai. The actual style itself is Goju-Ryu Karate-do. The late Gogen Yamaguchi was a Japanese student who trained under Chojun Miyagi during the 1930s (before the latter returned to his native Okinawa). I have trained in Goju Kai dojos in the UK and Australia where the curriculum has been the same. I have no experience of a Goju-Ryu Dojo so I can only presume that the differences will be in the detail of specific techniques or emphasis in kata.

I have studied Goju Ryu and have discussed many theories on its origins with teachers and fellow students. The Kung Fu styles of Fukien province heavily influenced the development of Goju Ryu. The links between Goju Ryu and White Crane are probably the most well known and accepted. There is another Fukien style that has very strong technical similarities to Goju Ryu called Ngo cho kun - Five Ancestor Fist Kung Fu. I have no first hand experience on this style but what I have read is that this Kung Fu style combines teachings of peho (white crane), Tai Cho (Sung dynasty emperor boxing), lohan (Buddhist arhat methods), kao kun (monkey), and tat chun (Bodhidharma’s method). Perhaps teachings from this style explain some of the other Kung Fu techniques or similarities not directly sourced from the White Crane schools. I am sure any students of Ngo cho kun would be able to shed further light on any possible relationship.