Let's talk Kanku Dai

[DaveB]

In short, the Japanese mindset the homogeneity of the syllabus is what matters. Whereas, in Okinawa the approach is that each kata is in of it self a treasure trove of information. So we are all wrong, and some how all right.

Interesting stuff but all very beside the point.

My point was not that the hiean are inferior or not needed, quite the contrary. I am just asking for a little more detail to support a vague but much repeated assertion.

Saying that something is a step, doesn't tell me what you gain from taking that step, which is what I asked.

Hi Dave , I don't know why you think I have an obsession with syllabus and grade !

It is not an obsession, just the way I trained and I based my opinion on it .

You're confusing me with Mark B.

[Wado Heretic]

To be more exacting then; the Japanese view each kata as introducing one to a new set of movements, but which are just a part of the whole of the system. That is what the step is; a new set of movements within the part of the whole. One benefit to be gained from this is compartmentalisation, it allows one to focus progress into steps; instead of attempting to engage the student in the entirety of the broadness of the Ryu-ha in one sitting. By compartmentalising, one can also return to a step to maintain one's study. To paraphrase Funakoshi; Karate is like boiling water.

So the innate benefits of a "step" is compartmentalisation, and that it allows one to have a progressive model, alongside a review model. There are a multitude of advantages to this; but the primary one is that of accessibility.

To give an example; I have taught students with a knowledge of the Pinan Kata the higher Kata of Kusanku, Passai, and Chinto, and relatively swiftly they were able to develop their performance of said kata to a level where my input was not a constant necessity. I have also taught people on a course basis these kata, and to people with no knowledge of the Pinan kata or Naihanchi, and they innately struggled because they did not have the intrinsic knowledge of how Go and Ju are manifested mechanically in Shorin-Ryu. I have also had people with significant martial arts background who just wished to learn the combative nature of Karate, in which case I didn't bother with the Pinan as they are too recent, and again because they lacked these earlier steps they struggled with the much more demanding, and longer kata than students with experience with the Pinan.

That is the benefit I have observed, and experienced my self. So the step of studying in a certain order, and having a progressive model, which also allows a review of themes in isolation has been useful in that manner.

What I was attempting to provide before was a context for the explanation, and I felt the argument regarding homogeneity provided at least a potential answer to the question. Hopefully, this more exacting explanation is more useful. End of the day though, I doubt their is a perfect answer because at the end of the day what is the use of "kata" anyway? We all have our own answers as to that, and ultimately our sincerity in what we practice matters more. That is indeed a wishy-washy cop out of an answer, but we are dealing with an interpretive field; the individual's experiance of their karate, and being engaged in that experience is the only real compass we have. Good luck in finding a concrete answer that you find satisfying, but I have to express my doubts that it exists.

Edited May 25, 2015 by Wado Heretic

[DaveB]

I'm not looking for a perfect answer, just one that supports Pers's assertion that it is vital to learn the hiean before learning kanku dai, and though eloquent, it still falls short. The context of the question was the assertion Pers made.

I would argue that it is not the different movements that contribute to a students kanku dai but the movements that are most similar.

The assertion Pers has made rests on whether or not you measure the quality of a kankudai performance after giving the student the equivalent amount of training time as they would have allotted to learning the heian kata.

I.e. Spend two years doing heian then 3 months on kanku dai vs two years and 3 months doing kanku dai or 2 years doing some other kata before kanku dai.

What Pers effectively said was that the person using the heian would look better/know more/fight better, (pick your preference) than the others.

I am trying to grasp what Pers feels he gets/gives through the hiean that make this the case.

The possibility exists that Pers was comparing a raw beginner being taught kanku dai vs the guy who has 2+ years of training after learning the heian kata. But that would be a pointless comparison because one has training and one does not.

[Kanku65]

Interesting stuff but all very beside the point.

My point was not that the hiean are inferior or not needed, quite the contrary. I am just asking for a little more detail to support a vague but much repeated assertion.

Saying that something is a step, doesn't tell me what you gain from taking that step, which is what I asked.

This is in no way absolute, but an idea I've developed over my time reading this thread.

Yes, Kanku-dai can be the fighting system itself. It teaches you to do technique X followed by A and Y technique followed by A

However, the benefit of learning the Heian series first could be that you learn to do X followed by B, then X followed by C, X followed by D, etc.

In a sense, a very linear sense at least, learning the Heians first allows you to understand the options which are rich within Kanku-dai. Before learning Kanku-dai itself to prevent one from developing a linear set of techniques, and gain an understanding that no matter how hard you train at 1 form, that form alone cannot provide you with the proper knowledge to protect yourself without understanding that you can do BCDEFG after X, and not just A.

The heian katas are to Kanku-dai as the basics are to Heian shodan. One does not get to learn Heian shodan before learning geidan barrai. (This of course differs system to system, teacher to teacher)

[DaveB]

Kanku, I appreciate the effort that you and Wado heretic put in, but honestly such confusion over a question is answer enough.

I recommend you look at Bill Burgars book, 5 years one kata. It gives a good guide on how one can develop a single kata into a whole fighting system. I take a different approach but it's a very good book.

[sensei8]

Kanku, I appreciate the effort that you and Wado heretic put in, but honestly such confusion over a question is answer enough.

I recommend you look at Bill Burgars book, 5 years one kata. It gives a good guide on how one can develop a single kata into a whole fighting system. I take a different approach but it's a very good book .

To the bold type above...

Solid idea!!

[Wado Heretic]

I thought the answer was quite succinct; whatever you have found confusing I am happy to discuss further. However, if you have simply found the answer unsatisfying, there is nothing more to be said. We cannot be content with every answer we receive, and we cannot agree with every one. Karate would never have come into existence in the first place if that were true.

I would third the suggestion of reading Mr Burgar's work; it is insightful and is useful for challenging one's perception of kata. Indeed; it is that particular book that influenced me to look at the Pinan series as one whole kata, divided into different themes, rather than a disparate collection of kata. One can find some of his writing at this blog: http://martialartspublishingltd.blogspot.co.uk/

[DaveB]

There is no confusion on my part. You argue that the inclusion of the heian as a component of learning kanku dai offers the chance to compartmentalise lessons that come together in the final kata. These lessons are in movements similar to those in the longer kata.

However if training in this way is beneficial, there is nothing stopping you from doing this to kanku dai. Split the kata into six sections, train them sequentially and revise the older lessons as the themes recur in the later parts.

You didn't answer the question being asked.

I am trying to understand what precisely a student gains from going through the hiean kata, that he cannot gain from spending the time studying kanku dai?

The assertion Pers has made rests on whether or not you measure the quality of a kankudai performance after giving the student the equivalent amount of training time as they would have allotted to learning the heian kata.

I.e. Spend two years doing heian then 3 months on kanku dai vs two years and 3 months doing kanku dai or 2 years doing some other kata before kanku dai.

What Pers effectively said was that the person using the heian would look better/know more/fight better, (pick your preference) than the others.

I am trying to grasp what Pers feels he gets/gives through the hiean that make this the case

As I said, the lack of an answer is answer enough. I appreciate your efforts.

[bushido_man96]

Kanku, I appreciate the effort that you and Wado heretic put in, but honestly such confusion over a question is answer enough.

I recommend you look at Bill Burgars book, 5 years one kata. It gives a good guide on how one can develop a single kata into a whole fighting system. I take a different approach but it's a very good book.

I've been under the impression that many of these katas were originally learned as a complete fighting method, each in and of itself. If that is the case, then the need to learn more is just to supplement the training.

I feel that as Karate styles have changed over the years, especially with the grading systems and syllabi, forms tend to be done more for rank requirements as opposed to what they were initially used for. But I could be wrong, here.

[pers]

There is no confusion on my part. You argue that the inclusion of the heian as a component of learning kanku dai offers the chance to compartmentalise lessons that come together in the final kata. These lessons are in movements similar to those in the longer kata.

However if training in this way is beneficial, there is nothing stopping you from doing this to kanku dai. Split the kata into six sections, train them sequentially and revise the older lessons as the themes recur in the later parts.

You didn't answer the question being asked.

I am trying to understand what precisely a student gains from going through the hiean kata, that he cannot gain from spending the time studying kanku dai?

The assertion Pers has made rests on whether or not you measure the quality of a kankudai performance after giving the student the equivalent amount of training time as they would have allotted to learning the heian kata.

I.e. Spend two years doing heian then 3 months on kanku dai vs two years and 3 months doing kanku dai or 2 years doing some other kata before kanku dai.

What Pers effectively said was that the person using the heian would look better/know more/fight better, (pick your preference) than the others.

I am trying to grasp what Pers feels he gets/gives through the hiean that make this the case

As I said, the lack of an answer is answer enough. I appreciate your efforts.

A karateka who spend 2 years on hian katas and then 3 months on kankudai has more ability and understanding than a student who spent 2 years and 3 months on kankudai alone .