I don't really worry about whether any particular teacher teaches the same style or art as I do. If someone's worth training with then they're worth training with regardless of style. I'm happy to train under a good Aikido teacher, a good Ju-jitsu teacher, a good BJJ teacher, a good Wado teacher, a good Shotokan teacher, a good Shorin Ryu teacher etc. I'm sure each would have something of value to teach me. As for my students, I encourage them to train with others, regardless of style - as long as they're training is compatible with our ethos. Would I get in another Shorin Ryu teacher to teach them? Yes, of course. There's no way I could ever claim to know all there is to know about Shorin Ryu. Even if I did, other teachers - even within the same group - will emphasise different nuances and teach in their own unique manner that may trigger an understanding in a student's mind that you haven't managed to achieve yourself. Mike
I agree wholeheartedly from the point of view of Budo in the broader context. But, if you study Shotokan, and you get a guest instructor in to teach Kung Fu to your group - it is unlikely that he will improve your ability to do Shotokan any better, but he may well bring a different type of wealth to your training that has other benefits. To improve significantly enough in any one given style however, you need someone who is an expert in that particular field. So am, I and in fact I do so on a regular basis, but again it does not improve my technical ability within my core style – in fact, I have to consciously separate certain aspects. Again, I am not saying that I know all there is about my style either – far from it, but I believe I understand it well enough to know what will enhance my(or my students’) training /understanding and what could be counterproductive. Sorry but I see the type of training done in this vid as the latter.
Hi Gary I think you have a view of karate styles rather different from my own. What either of us may think of the above video clip is a red herring here so I won't carp on about that (pun intended). Anyway, I'm getting the impression that you think about karate styles as distinct entities. Its not a perception I share, despite the obvious reality that people inevitably categorise and pigeon-hole in terms of styles. Instead, I think in terms of your karate, my karate, John's karate, Quentin's karate, well you get the idea. They all will have: - much in commmon - distinct differences - something of value to offer I disagree. It may be that stepping outside of your own particular pigeon-hole gives you a perspective on it that you might not have had otherwise. The view (of your system) from someone else's pigeon-hole may, or may not, be enlightening. But if you never pop over to take a look then you'll never know. I find that difficult to grasp. Aikido, amongst other things, has had a fundamental impact on my karate. Why do you have to separate certain aspects? To retain the purity of the art? I don't care about purity, I care about effectiveness. To that end I feel free to use any principles from any system - they don't have to be consistent but they do have to NOT be mutually inconsistent. I find though that quite often those principles that are effective cut across arts. Hence, for me some aspects of Aikido have helped to bring out that which was already there in Karate, it just needed a different training regimen with a different emphasis. Mike
I'll be honest here and say that when a started, I had a view that what I did was karate, now 25 + years down the line I don't think it is. Therefore Karate styles may not be distinct entities, but I feel Wado is. One thing that I am not, is pigeon-holed. As well as training all over the world in Karate, I have trained jujutsu, Kenjutsu, Iaido, batto jutsu.... hadahada. No, In the particular Koryu I train in, they use the principle of "Hi-to-emei". In a nutshell it surrounds the singularity of movement in a same arm to leg ratio - in order to transmit body weight/efficiency. Very difficult to do karate "Gyuaku" with these principles tied around your hips. Again, all about the movement - or at least it is for us Wado fellas. Gary
This may be a stupid question, but I know very little about Mr Abernethy. Where does he get his information from? I was told he did Wado, but he seems to do Bunkai from other styles too. Is he graded in Shotokan or Goju? Does he invent his own Bunkai, or did his teacher teach him?
Dont know. You know what i find peculiar though, At this point i believe that Patrick McArthy and I.Abernethy both think the movement for the jump in Heian godan to be a lapel choke on a downed opponent. That does not satisfy me. If we are to fight for self-defense purposes then how do they come to this conclusion? If the opponent is down then whats with the further attack.. And P.McArthy has done quite some research to find origionality for the Bunkai or better described as Oyo. No matter what people go with on this one im staying with what my Instructor told me years ago - its "breaking the Bo". I dont care of probable success of application (for this tech), becouse, well, im old fasioned that way Man, i wish Taira Sensei lived down the street from me haha cheers (Gary Wado, i agree with a point or two you have made. With much respect, Griffin)
Abernethy also interprets it as an armlock on a downed opponent. A restraint with shoulder dislocation (following from the previous movement being a throw). With the "jump" an exaggerated step over (to control the body).
cheers PASmith, thats right, i forgot the opponent was just thrown beforehand, my mistake. Still like beaking the Bo better lol, im odd like that
Well, that has been the source of much head scratching on my behalf for many a year. As I understand it, his core karate training was in a Wado based group (Chojinkai I believe) however, the approach he sets out - is very "un-Wado" like. This leads me to believe that much of what he does is gleaned from his research into other sources - and he simply uses the "enbusen" of Wado kata - as a platform for his teachings. On the surface of it, no problems there, but the fact that Wado Kata are constructed for a largely different purpose, has a tendency to make most serious Wado-ka disregard his work. Or at least they don't take it that seriously as part of their Wado study. In fact, what Mr A sought to learn and therefore teaches today could be a case of Wado being a victim of its own success. Gary
I would re-word that to "the fact that wado kata are taught for a largely different purpose, has a tendency to make most serious wado-Ka disregard his work." The Wado kata have not been so significantly altered (like for example the TKD Kata) that it can be said they were 'constructed' for a different purpose. They are still the catalogue of self protection techniques and principles that they were when their older versions were brought to Japan.
Actually I think either is valid. And Otsuka did adjust the kata (in some cases quite significantly), in order for them function in a way he considered more conducent. Gary
Hi Gary Apologies for delay in replying, real life has been getting in the way. I remain to be convinced. There is much variation between karate styles. I've seen nothing to suggest that the differences between Wado and a.n. other style (ie. its distinctiveness) is greater than that between plenty of other karate styles. Its distinct yes, but not necessarily any more than Shotokan, Goju or Shorin as far as I can see. In fact, I think it could be argued that Shorin ryu - as I know it - is hugely distinct from modern Shotokan, Goju or Wado, which by comparison seem all much of a muchness. That's not the impression you're giving me here. Yes, you have a number of different pigeon-holes, rather than just one. But are you not seeing them each as distinct entities, rather than different faces of the same beast? I didn't say that all the principles you use have to be compatible. Some principles (from different arts) you can use at the same time, some have to be kept separate simply because they're mechanically incompatible. Well the correct movement is important to me too, but thats only part of the body knowledge that combines to form a self-defence art. From a later post... In terms of stances I can agree with that to a degree. As we've previously discussed, the stance progression employed in the Wado kata was clearly developed by Ohtsuka and no doubt goes beyond what was originally taught to him in karate. But in terms of the upper body movements there's little to differentiate Wado from Shotokan, they both clearly have the same root and frankly aren't really that much different from Shorin. Overall I'd say that Wado kata are closer to the Shorin kata than the Shotokan kata are, in many ways - sequence, overall shape of the techniques, balance between relaxation & tension, size of stances. So I'd have to agree with John when he argues that the Wado kata are taught for different purposes rather than constructed for different purposes. The Wado kata are clearly closer to the originals than the Shotokan versions are. So if, as you assert, the Wado kata are intended to be used in a different way that's because Ohtsuka made took a particular tool and modified it in a comparitively minor way then used it for a different purpose. We started this line of discussion with you saying "I wouldn't be that chuffed if my instructor felt the need to bring in someone else to plug the gaps in his knowledge, in the very art I was paying him to teach me". I still don't get it. I don't see the difference between bringing in outside instruction to either a) broaden your students' horizons (into different arts), or b) give greater depth to your own art I don't see why either would be a discredit to you (or me) as an instructor. Mike
Hi Mike, I think the reason why Gary sees Wado as so separate is that, from what he has said on other other threads, the core of wado as a fighting and training system are its Ju Jitsu exercises and that the karate element is only used to reinforce basic Ju Jitsu principles.
I suppose it's always going to be difficult for anyone to compare the workings of one style to that of another. Very few have been able to train in multiple styles to the extent where you can truly appreciate the MO of the style(s). In my mind, you have to look at Wado's paired kata to appreciate differences. I think my point was not so much in terms of "kata" that physically manifests itself, but more in terms of the pedagogy behind the art. IME, the key to getting the most out of Wado's solo kata, is to work them in conjunction within the principles found in its various paired kata. Without it, all you have is the "Omote" of the Kata. I think in some cases, there is no doubt that some ways are incompatible - buts that’s not to say that you can't broaden your Budo by practicing them. In the most part though, with what I have practiced, there have been some fantastic cross overs - particularly with the sword work side of things. But that does also depend on the sword school as well. As has been discussed here before, traditional Koryu tended to have two approaches to how differing disciplines (sword, tanto etc.) were subsumed into their training. Some sought to incorporate existing schools into theirs, whilst others created their own. Either way, it was important that core principles remained constant across the disciplines. Failure to do this could have fatal consequences. Isn't there? What about the fact that Otsuka made the conscious decision to raise many of the hand techniques from Chudan to Jodan? Also the upper body seems (to me anyway) to be doing very different things - in terms of aspect, relationship to the opponent and distance etc. - see first move Pinan Nidan. I think however, the changes he made to the construction of that tool were considerable enough - especially if you take into account the paired kata aspect I mentioned earlier. Its kinda like saying “Please read the instructions before using this tool” Gary
Hi Gary, To my mind, and I suspect to Mike's as well, that is utterly insignificant. Any upper body technique cross applies to Jodan or Chudan depending upon circumstances, the position illustrated in Kata is no more than a suggestion.
as i understand it, early wado involved a hell of a lot of fighting practice. maybe ohtsuka liked punching people in the face
Hi John, Mike This is another example perhaps of Otsuka’s reasoning coming in to play here - with referrence to the practicing of Kata (not necessarily the application of techniques within) Just like the Wado Shuto uke (performed to Jodan in Kata), Otsuka chose to raise the performance height of a number of techniques. As I understand it, this was in the most part to do with making it harder for the performer to do - in that a greater degree of body movement / control is involved due to the increased distance of the blocking / punching arm (away from the centre). He wrote about Naihanchi and the elevated arm position as follows: "All hand movements are done high. In this kata, this statement is true. When hands are held high, one concentrates about his hands and his lower body tends to collapse easily. It is with this fact in mind; that one trains Naihanchi without compromising his stance or posture". Gary
Do you mean the training of stances in the kata or something more than that? If its more than that, could you elaborate - an example of a kata move and corresponding kumite move perhaps? I'll come back to that in a subsequent post. Could you elaborate? Mike
I can't say I find myself particularly convinced by Ohtsuka's argument on this one. Or rather, it may be a little more difficult to do the arm movements in jodan but it does take the kata further away from its intended practical application. So while you may gain (not that I'm personally convinced) slightly in one way you lose hugely by modifying the kata in such a way as to remove its core principles. Rightly or wrongly, I've considered for a long time that this whole jodan/chudan thing to be just a symptom of the 'arbitrisation' of karate-do. The angles employed in chudan soto-uke, uchi-uke, shuto-uke (both upper arm & forearm 45 degrees to the vertical) and the angles employed in the jodan equivalents (upper arm horizontal, forearm vertical) are fairly arbitrary as far as I can see. In particular the jodan version gives both student and teacher an arbitrary ideal to aim for. Both can easily see if the student has got the 'correct' horizontal/vertical configuration. In 'do' where practical application gives way to self-cultivation it doesn't really matter what the angles are, as long as there is an (by definition, arbitrary) ideal to aim for. Horizontal/vertical is perfect in this regard. The Wado Naihanchi seems an excellent example of this. The bit that sprang to my mind are the 'supported' inward and outward blocks. These aren't blocks at all to my mind. I consider the primary applications here being as strikes to the neck. The horizontal 'supporting' hand is used (in a variety of ways) to draw the opponent down and off-balance, allowing the strike to the neck. The opponent must be drawn down for this to work. Doing it in jodan will make it difficult to achieve the correct mechanis and therefore lack power, but more importantly you can't achieve the correct angle to strike the neck. Reference to Gichin Funakoshi seems to back this up. In his 1925 book he offers an application of the 'hook punch' in Naihanchi - the opponent is taken down by using this movement to bar the arm. That simply isn't possible if the arm is held has high as Ohtsuki does in his video. It seems to me that perhaps Ohtsuka modified the kata so as to remove one set of principles, but possibly introduce another set. Mike
