Kata question(Bunkai related)

[Sauzin]

The deeper stances are also because of the influence of kendo on Japanese society. The same thing happened when Yamaguchi took Goju to Japan.

Funakoshi was an Okinawan and learned Shuri-te, the predecessor to Shorin-Ryu. His stances are higher because that's the way he was taught in Okinawa. THis had nothing to do with age.

As far as lower stances being more "scientific", if you can find some research proving this, I'd be interested in reading it.

For a good insight into the principles behind kata (in any style), why moving correctly when performing kata and understanding the principles behind interpereting kata, get Toguchi's book "Okinawan Goju Ryu II" . THe chapters on kata and kaisai are short but very revealing

I agree.

In regards to the "scientific" statement I didn't mean to infer that deeper stances were more scientific. I said the Japanese approach was more scientific and this is really an observation and more a matter of opinion. The reason I mentioned this is because they observed two very basic scientific principles. The broader the base the greater the support. Also the lower the center of gravity the more difficult something is to tip over. If you look at these principles alone one would think that every stance should be broad and deep. But as you and I know there is a lot more to fighting then just stability. Also these stability principles can be gained in other ways (rooting, proper alignment, and force redirection) without needing to become static as a very deep stance can sometimes be.

[hajimekyu]

Never mind...the post I replied to was moved

Edited May 30, 2005 by hajime~kyu

[ninjanurse]

Hajime, I moved the previous post to it's own thread (Learn Kata from a video?) so I have moved your post as well.

[hajimekyu]

Hajime, I moved the previous post to it's own thread (Learn Kata from a video?) so I have moved your post as well.

Thanks...I was trying to edit/delete so I could reply on the correct thread.We must be following each other closely

[ninjanurse]

I know!!!! We seem to tripping over each other!!!!

[PBI]

The greater stance depth in Japanese styles of karate (like Shotokan) versus Okinawan styles is also at least partially attributable to the manner in which Funakoshi Sensei promulgated his style: university physical education classes. To this day, there is, in many respects, a somewhat greater emphasis on "physical training" in Shotokan than in, say, Shito-Ryu.

My personal experience with Shotokan is that I found the depth of stance beneficial for strength and flexibility, and for training purposes. (Kind of like the Roman legions used to train with 20 pound swords, but fight with 10 pounders.) That said, I think an additional by-product of this emphasis touches on your original question related to bunkai, and that is that many Shotokan schools are often less focused on the variety of bunkai, henka and oyo that can be applied through each technique in a kata, and more focused on stance training. (That may be why it seems that the bunkai you are being taught only work under strictly controlled conditions, if I may paraphrase.)

Having come through Shito-Ryu, Shotokan, and now Shindo Jinen Ryu, I appreciate what Shotokan has to offer, but consider it a somewhat incomplete style with regard to kata. (And that is not because of inferior teaching either; I trained in both Okazaki Sensei and Mori Sensei's organizations.) Once you make some progress in your current style, it might be worthwhile to check out some cross-training opportunities like multi-style seminars to gain some additional understanding and experience.

[Sauzin]

Good point(s).

[SANCHIN31]

The greater stance depth in Japanese styles of karate (like Shotokan) versus Okinawan styles is also at least partially attributable to the manner in which Funakoshi Sensei promulgated his style: university physical education classes. To this day, there is, in many respects, a somewhat greater emphasis on "physical training" in Shotokan than in, say, Shito-Ryu.

My personal experience with Shotokan is that I found the depth of stance beneficial for strength and flexibility, and for training purposes. (Kind of like the Roman legions used to train with 20 pound swords, but fight with 10 pounders.) That said, I think an additional by-product of this emphasis touches on your original question related to bunkai, and that is that many Shotokan schools are often less focused on the variety of bunkai, henka and oyo that can be applied through each technique in a kata, and more focused on stance training. (That may be why it seems that the bunkai you are being taught only work under strictly controlled conditions, if I may paraphrase.)

I appreciate what Shotokan has to offer, but consider it a somewhat incomplete style with regard to kata. (And that is not because of inferior teaching either; I trained in both Okazaki Sensei and Mori Sensei's organizations.) Once you make some progress in your current style, it might be worthwhile to check out some cross-training opportunities like multi-style seminars to gain some additional understanding and experience.

The lower your stance is, the closer you are to being on the ground. what good is a low stance that is strong in one direction and transitioning is slow? recipie for disaster. low, long zenkutsu dachi is weak in tactic and near impossible for in-close fighting...but looks good in competition and its always better to display exaggerated technique to wake up the sleeping judges and get your "I'm #1,2,3 symbol" -which is usually something that is worth less than the entry fee.

The answer to me is clear. It is neither specifically for leg power nor comfort in awkwardness. It has more to do with functionality and structural efficiency than either of the above. Of course developed leg power is a product of the exercise, as is comfort in awkwardness, but the primary utility of a low stance is to change the height and angle of one's posture in a structurally efficient manner, in order to effectively apply a grappling, throwing or takedown technique.

[PBI]

The lower your stance is, the closer you are to being on the ground. what good is a low stance that is strong in one direction and transitioning is slow? recipie for disaster. low, long zenkutsu dachi is weak in tactic and near impossible for in-close fighting...but looks good in competition and its always better to display exaggerated technique to wake up the sleeping judges and get your "I'm #1,2,3 symbol" -which is usually something that is worth less than the entry fee.

The answer to me is clear. It is neither specifically for leg power nor comfort in awkwardness. It has more to do with functionality and structural efficiency than either of the above. Of course developed leg power is a product of the exercise, as is comfort in awkwardness, but the primary utility of a low stance is to change the height and angle of one's posture in a structurally efficient manner, in order to effectively apply a grappling, throwing or takedown technique.

I agree 100%. I should have clarified that I found the training benefits of "overly-deep" stances to be in the realm of physical strength and flexibility gain; not necessarily in the ability to actually USE them in combat. Nobody should be fighting in locked-down stances anyway, as stances are more properly transitional. Structural integrity, and the related outcomes of maneuveribility and effective technique delivery are definitely the goals.

"Stance for stance's sake" is pointless.

PS. Please forgive my early fascination with the emoticons; I'm sure it will pass...