MatsuShinshii

Kime and Chinkuchi differ. But what about Shishee and Chinkuchi?

Learning is a life-long journey, my friend. That is very true.

To me this is bang on. A black belt should mean mastering of the basics....."mastering" being the key word here. Many time I see the interpretation of mastering to be "barely fumbling through" with a lack of a solid basic foundation and consistent performance. I don't expect a new shodan black belt to be super human, but I would expect that they would have a solid knowledge of basic techniques, decent form, have their required kata down pat, and know basic applications. If they are regularly making mistakes in the kata, their basic form is sloppy and their lacking some fundamental skills then this person has not demonstrated that they have master the basics. I don't think we do karate (regardless of style) and flavors by advancing students who are not ready yet. Define mastery, because that word has very broad meanings. My former sensei claimed he’s never truly mastered anything, and nor will he ever. Mastery to some means perfection, and/or there’s no room for improvement. I think a shodan has shown proficiency in the basics/foundation of the art. A shodan must be able to use/apply those basics in many different situations. Kyu ranks should be able to look at a shodan and get a relative textbook view of the techniques. Obviously people’s physical abilities differ, and one has to take physical impairments/disabilities, and age into consideration, but a shodan must be able to apply what’s required for the rank. I’ve looked at kyu ranks as building a robot. The techniques are basic, and there’s little variation. I look at the lower yudansha ranks as making the art their own and starting to pass it on (1st-3rd dan or so). I view the middle yudansha ranks as teachers who are still making the art their own, but are more preserving and passing it down to the next generation (4th-6th or so). I view a master (6th and up) as someone who’s truly made the art their own, is fully versed in it, and is overseeing the teachers. The teachers’ teachers if you will. The highest I’ve attained is about 3 months before my nidan test, so what do I really know? I guess what I’m really trying to say is when you watch a shodan spar, you should clearly see him/her using the techniques the art has taught him/her this far, using them effectively, and not “getting lucky” nor the techniques working by chance. There’s other things too, but this is the easiest and most reliable assessment IMO. Without that ability, the rest of it, while important too in the grand scheme of things, is just window dressing. I'm not sure but I think when you cut and pasted this you must have pasted my quote under Lupin1's and vice versa. First off my definition of mastery is as I have stated in previous posts. I do not believe a person can master this art. Pure and simple. Master denotes that you have "mastered" the art itself, meaning there is nothing further to learn. I've been studying the arts for 40 years and can tell you that I have not learned everything. My Shinshii studied the art for 72 years and has never told me that there was nothing further to learn. I personally can not stand the title "Master" because IMHO it's nothing more than a way to boost an ego. That and again, using the very definition of the word, it's a down right lie. Having said that a Shodan should be able to show a great deal of proficiency. Know and have the attained skill of the Mudansha grades and the curriculum contained within. And most importantly be able to handle themselves in a fight. My issue with most black belts these days is that they were given the grade for reasons other than what they should be given for. For one thing - if they can not fight or at minimum defend themselves. The whole concept of it's just another belt perpetrates this way of thinking that the belt means nothing. Well my typical question to this is "at what point does the student actually resemble a BB? Sandan? Yondan? Godan? When can they actually fight and handle themselves? Doesn't this matter anymore? Isn't this the point? Another belt? Not in my mind. It is a beginning point but it's not the beginning. That is what the white belt is reserved for. I can see a white belt not being able to defend themselves but not a BB. Just my 2 cents. I hit the quote button, and that’s what it spit out. It wasn’t directed at anyone particularly, but that conversation contained within it in general. I really liked your previous post and agree in principle. But I would put something in there that I’m not sure how you feel and would appreciate your feedback... The people I’d truly consider masters wouldn’t consider themselves masters forthe reasons you’ve stated/in the way you’ve stated. None of them I’ve met would say they’ve learned everything there is to learn. Tadashi Nakamura (my organization’s founder) has stated he will never accept a 10th dan as long as he’s alive, because he feels he’ll be learning until the day he dies. Side note - he did not promote himself to his current kudan. He was promoted to nanadan by Mas Oyama, and his hachi and kudan were awarded by a Japanese budo organization. I’m not sure of the specifics, and it’s not something he advertises. I don’t view the term nor title of master, actually I prefer shihan, as someone who’s got nothing left to learn. I view the title as someone who’s mastered karate RELATIVE to the overwhelming majority of practitioners. Compared to just about everyone else out there, they’ve mastered the art. And there’s “masters’ masters” in a sense; the ones who are on another level; the ones who stand above the rest of the masters (not phony masters, but legitimate ones). People like Fumio Demura, Morio Higaonna, etc. I consider them the masters’ master, if that makes sense. And I’m quite sure that people at their level still learn. My teacher is a nanadan. He’s been an active karateka for 43 years, give or take. He’s taught for about 35 years, and ran his own dojo for about 30. His title is shuseki shihan and he is one of only 5 or 6 people in our organization with that rank and title. He doesn’t refer to himself as that title, but we call her m that. In my opinion he’s earned it. Has he mastered karate in the sense that there’s nothing left to learn nor improve? No. But he’s mastered it relative to practically everyone I know. And he’s mastered Seido Karate relative to just about everyone in the organization. There are only 5 people in the entire organization (about 30,000 members total) that hold a higher rank than him. I’d say that’s mastery, relatively speaking. I appreciate where you’re coming from. And I understand your definition of “master” or “mastered”. In my way of thinking years, grade and titles do not meet the meaning/ definition of the word/ title. Having said that you sited examples of what I would consider someone that is very proficient, highly skilled and very much respected. I have 40 years of study but am a student of the art and believe I’ll always be. I could not imagine a day when I would ever be able to call myself that term/ title. And as I said after 72 years my Shinshii has never referred to himself as a master. Call it a personal opinion.

Great points.

Wow! Full power to the end. I guess they got their batteries charged up prior to the fight. Like two power packed energizer bunny's. The fighter that lost should have kept up the leg kicks. It was effecting the other fighter quite a bit. May have been a different outcome. Thanks for the post. That was a good fight.

Depending on how the art is taught and whether you have a written student manual, taking notes could be a great idea to retain what is taught. I am a nerd of sorts and like to jot down things after class so I can come back to them and study them. This was mainly due to the way the art was taught. Shinshii would show you an application once, twice if you were really lucky. If you did not take notes or at least mental notes you may not remember what was taught as it might be months before he came back around to teaching or going over this application again. That and I am a history and research buff so I tend to jot things down that I find important. I ended up writing our first student manual and instructor manual for our organization due to this very reason. Before this we had nothing to refer to other than our memories or our notes. Its totally up to you. Some people can be shown something once and retain it for the rest of their lives and others must take notes and study it many times to retain it. If you wish to take notes and it makes you a better student of the arts then you should. However that's up to you and how you learn.

Great tips! Solid post!

Ah the good ol’days. I haven’t seen an old school match in quite some time. Unfortunately the likes of UFC, Belator and K1 have taken that spot. Good luck and like Sensei8 said if you find it let us all know. I’d love to watch this again.

Very true. A bit of info is sometimes all that is needed to spark interest.

Thank you Sensei8. A belated happy Thanks Giving to you and yours as well. And to all here on KF.

So does the term apply to anyone that has "mastered" a single technique? How about a few techniques? To me, if I were to ever use the term "Master" to define someone, it would be in reference to mastering the art not just a portion of the art.

To me this is bang on. A black belt should mean mastering of the basics....."mastering" being the key word here. Many time I see the interpretation of mastering to be "barely fumbling through" with a lack of a solid basic foundation and consistent performance. I don't expect a new shodan black belt to be super human, but I would expect that they would have a solid knowledge of basic techniques, decent form, have their required kata down pat, and know basic applications. If they are regularly making mistakes in the kata, their basic form is sloppy and their lacking some fundamental skills then this person has not demonstrated that they have master the basics. I don't think we do karate (regardless of style) and flavors by advancing students who are not ready yet. Define mastery, because that word has very broad meanings. My former sensei claimed he’s never truly mastered anything, and nor will he ever. Mastery to some means perfection, and/or there’s no room for improvement. I think a shodan has shown proficiency in the basics/foundation of the art. A shodan must be able to use/apply those basics in many different situations. Kyu ranks should be able to look at a shodan and get a relative textbook view of the techniques. Obviously people’s physical abilities differ, and one has to take physical impairments/disabilities, and age into consideration, but a shodan must be able to apply what’s required for the rank. I’ve looked at kyu ranks as building a robot. The techniques are basic, and there’s little variation. I look at the lower yudansha ranks as making the art their own and starting to pass it on (1st-3rd dan or so). I view the middle yudansha ranks as teachers who are still making the art their own, but are more preserving and passing it down to the next generation (4th-6th or so). I view a master (6th and up) as someone who’s truly made the art their own, is fully versed in it, and is overseeing the teachers. The teachers’ teachers if you will. The highest I’ve attained is about 3 months before my nidan test, so what do I really know? I guess what I’m really trying to say is when you watch a shodan spar, you should clearly see him/her using the techniques the art has taught him/her this far, using them effectively, and not “getting lucky” nor the techniques working by chance. There’s other things too, but this is the easiest and most reliable assessment IMO. Without that ability, the rest of it, while important too in the grand scheme of things, is just window dressing. I'm not sure but I think when you cut and pasted this you must have pasted my quote under Lupin1's and vice versa. First off my definition of mastery is as I have stated in previous posts. I do not believe a person can master this art. Pure and simple. Master denotes that you have "mastered" the art itself, meaning there is nothing further to learn. I've been studying the arts for 40 years and can tell you that I have not learned everything. My Shinshii studied the art for 72 years and has never told me that there was nothing further to learn. I personally can not stand the title "Master" because IMHO it's nothing more than a way to boost an ego. That and again, using the very definition of the word, it's a down right lie. Having said that a Shodan should be able to show a great deal of proficiency. Know and have the attained skill of the Mudansha grades and the curriculum contained within. And most importantly be able to handle themselves in a fight. My issue with most black belts these days is that they were given the grade for reasons other than what they should be given for. For one thing - if they can not fight or at minimum defend themselves. The whole concept of it's just another belt perpetrates this way of thinking that the belt means nothing. Well my typical question to this is "at what point does the student actually resemble a BB? Sandan? Yondan? Godan? When can they actually fight and handle themselves? Doesn't this matter anymore? Isn't this the point? Another belt? Not in my mind. It is a beginning point but it's not the beginning. That is what the white belt is reserved for. I can see a white belt not being able to defend themselves but not a BB. Just my 2 cents.

Can't say I would call that an actual Dan grading. More of a demonstration mixed with a festival than anything. Nothing taken away from the person (I'm sure he deserves the grade) but I wouldn't call that a legitimate grading. In fact I can't remember the last grading I've been to above Rokudan. These grades are typically given for years of service and contributions to the art and are not based on knowledge/skill in the sense that they would be tested for. I'm not a TKD practitioner so maybe I'm wrong. If this is the case and this was an actual grading test... I've got nothing good to say so I'll end it there.

I have recently had the opportunity to watch a bit of this art and IMHO it seems like a well rounded combative art. As far as I can see I'd give it two thumbs up. Of course I have no actual experience in the art. So I say this purely after watching a bit of the methodologies and hearing a bit of the concepts. As far as learning it as a whole or learning the individual arts... that would be for the individual to decide for themselves.

To thy own self be true. This is a hard concept for some (with large ego's) to understand and accept.

This has been the hardest part for me over the course of the past few years, arranging some training time outside of class. This is hard for many students to juggle. Its even harder for them to realize that 2 hours of class time two or three times a week is not enough. This can be especially hard when you have other responsibilities like job, family, kids, kids sports, etc. etc. However, to become proficient in anything you do requires time and dedication. That's not to say it's easy.

Cauliflower ears and ringworm? You guys are making a strong argument for the striking arts.

I can appreciate that sentiment as I have had employees (grown men) act like they were 5 year old's throwing temper tantrums. I get it.

I was referring to tegumi/muto as a separate practice, rather than a component of karate, in this case. I do suspect that there was some degree of crossover over skills, but I would agree with you that such things are not part of the kata, however. I suppose Unsu could be seen as having a bit, with the drop to the floor and kicking up, but that's about it. There are a few examples of techniques done on the ground, such as can be seen in Itoman Morinobu's book, or even in the original printings of Funakoshi's. They aren't associated with kata, for the most part, though. I agree. We actually practice some Ti techniques that are also not found within the Kata. So I get your point that it may be a separate component of an art that was passed down rather than contained directly within the art. I guess that light at the end of the tunnel isn't coming today. Thanks for your input and knowledge.

Yes sir, I believe we are. Great points.

Agreed. Many thanks. My Shinshii used this early in my training but at some point Bunkai took it's place. I had completely forgotten about the word. I called him as soon as I read this and questioned him about it as nothing came up when I made a google search. (imagine that not finding an Uchinaaguchi words meaning ) I couldn't remember what the meaning of the word was but he said it meant "what the hands are doing". He also said that it could be interpreted as "hidden hand techniques". He said that he never forgot about it but Bunkai was an accepted term on Okinawa and was being used so he just stopped using it. I love this forum! Thanks very much Wastelander, you're awesome. You're a wealth of knowledge my friend. Many thanks!

DWx, Well put. Solid post!

Yes I recall reading this as well. However I still do not think that the Kata contains actual ground fighting techniques. Muto (Tegumi) yes. There are throws, take downs, sweeps and off balancing techniques (our description of Muto techniques) but I have yet to see someone show me the posture and then show me a direct relationship to Ne Waza. Tuidi - yes Muto - yes even Buki'gwa (kobudo) - yes. Kusanku (sai and Jiffa) as an example. Striking and Kicking (what some now call percussive impact) - yes. Ne Waza - I would love to see evidence that makes sense but I have yet to buy into it and seem to think that it's more of a reaction of an earlier teacher creating a response to an element that is missing. My study of and research of Tegumi (Okinawan grappling/wrestling), Jiao Li (Di), and Tuidi (Qin Na) has never shown me evidence that there is an element of ground fighting. The closest I could get to kind of seeing it is through some of the applications contained within Naihanshi in that it demonstrates holds and chokes and the like. This I have seen translated to ground fighting but in yet if this was the intent why then does the postures, when on the ground, not remotely resemble the application? I wish someone could show me the error of my ways but I just have never found any evidence to support the claims that it is contained within the Kata or more precisely within the postures themselves. Again if anyone has evidence of this I would love to see it. I really don't mind being proven wrong. I would in fact relish the opportunity to be proven wrong and learn something that I have yet to be shown.

To the bold - I see where you are coming from and I can not deny that you have a valid point. Students emulate their teachers in the beginning. This is true. However as we develop we also start to explore and develop our own way. This is natural. To say that it is robotic... well maybe in the beginning but this apart of the natural learning cycle. Yes students copy their teachers but they also grow with time and develop their own way. This has to be the way since we all have different skill sets, body types, abilities. You can not be a carbon copy of your teacher no matter how much you try to be. It's just not possible and further it would hinder your personal growth. As far as following the Kata itself is concerned - this IMHO is a pit fall. The Kata is a vessel that contains the techniques/applications. To follow the Kata literally without question is folly IMHO. The postures (each individual step, move, stance, whatever you prefer to call them) contained within the Kata are what is representative of the application contained. Yes you can have a sequence or series of postures that represent the application as well but if you follow the Kata only you miss many possibilities. One posture(application) from the beginning (pick a point in the Kata) can be utilized with another posture (application) in the end of a Kata or can be used with a posture (application) from another Kata altogether. If you study the chinese combat/martial arts manuals you will see these postures as representations of the applications/techniques. They are individual snap shots that have been put into a specified order (Kata) as a means of keeping and passing down this knowledge to your students. The kata is a container that holds the knowledge. The Kata is also a means of training the body to move in an efficient manner and to teach proper body mechanics to achieve maximum power in a technique. I do not disagree with your points. I only point out that to take the Kata literally (although you can as another means of learning) without seeing the whole picture is folly. One should explore all possibilities. This is the reason why you can literally study one or a few Kata for a life time. It is also the reason that many of the original founders may have only passed down a few Kata or only knew a few Kata themselves. It's because the possibilities are limitless and there is no Mastering the art. If explored and studied fully the student will remain a student for a life time. Especially considering that there are on average 14 to 20 Kata studied in an art. In some cases many more.

OK so something has been bugging me for a long time... for many years I have heard and have even used the word Bunkai to describe the study of applications contained within the Kata. All the time understanding the meaning/definition of this word and also understanding the stages of learning the applications. Stages of learning the applications Bunkai - to break down/disassemble - this is where the Kata is broken down to it's individual postures. Bunseki - to analize - this is where (at least in practical application terms) that the student studies the applications and it's possible meaning. Oyo - to apply - this is where the possible meaning is applied against an opponent to verify it's effectiveness. Instructors through the years have used this term and it has gotten more prevalent over the last 5 to 10. My question is; is this just another misinterpretation by westerners of a Japanese word that took off? I'm not sure since the Japanese use it as well. What am I missing here? Why would you use a word that means to breakdown or disassemble to define the study of the kata's applications? On it's basic level I get that you are extracting the postures of the Kata but what then. You do not have a viable or effective application until you analyze and apply these to verify their effectiveness. So why this one word to describe the applications? I have never heard this term when speaking of the original meaning of the postures or what we call the founders applications. I believe this is mainly in terms of to define practical (or created/best guess) applications. What do you think? Just a brain tickler for you to ponder and think about.