But that's the point. When a low kiba dachi is used, you aren't trying to be mobile, you are trying to immobilise someone else.
The same can be be said in Ninjutsu or any other Art as well. At least one person so far on here can understand that the above words ring so true. Thank You
Without trawling through the whole Shotokan canon, book by book, picture by picture, the first that springs to mind are the 3 Kiba dachi at the end of Hangetsu that have become Kokutsu dachi (followed by cross step and mae geri kicks. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MG6LkwkXnu0"]YouTube - Hirokazu Kanazawa - Hangetsu[/ame] 1.34 1.45 1.57
Funny, after I asked the question I went to work out and when I was doing Nijushiho I kept saying to myself "These back stances should be kiba dachi". I know in the RyuTe version of neiseishi there are back stances but they feel very different from a Shotokan back stance. When I was learning Nijushiho, I was always stretching out from kiba dachi because it felt right. I can't say back stance is wrong in that kata but I also play with "Nan Dan Sho" which is Trias' odd version of neiseishi and all those stretch out nukite movements are done from kiba. Now I know that Trias' katas are questionable, at best, but damn it, the kiba feels better. Anyway, just my take.
I first learnt Rohai kata using ma-hanmi nekoashi dachi (kotsu dachi as near as damn it) at the tetsui-uke stage, but then my group decided to align to the JKF way of doing it with shiko-dachi (close as us Wado boys get to Kiba-dachi). I still struggle with it - doesn't feel right to me. But I am great lover of Shiko/kiba in many other ways. Training briefly in Daito-ryu, I saw how those boys put it to good use - so I know what JWT is saying, but I think we do in Karate also - or at least if your training should if you have a good instructor. Getting back to the reason for shiko being in Rohai - I have yet to work out the benefits, but I am sure there is method in the madness. I probably won't sweat over it that much though and let the penny drop naturally. Gary
I don't know much about Aikido but their low kiba-dachi-like stances appear to be more shiko dachi than kiba. In my own training I have adopted a relatively high kiba dachi with inside tension for stand up work and a low, outside tension shiko dachi for when I need to drop my weight or my opponent. I remember puzzling greatly over ji-go-tai dachi when I was trying to learn the Matsubayashi version of Bassai. Coming from a Shotokan background, it just looked and felt all wrong. Now I understand its' usage, but it took a while. When you are manipulating an opponent's arm, where you have pulled him over and down, do you drop in deep kiba dachi or do you use shiko for deep weight drop? As an aside, I think part of the problem with teaching stances, is that they are not truly universal at all. What was the body position assumed for one movement in a particular kata is then defined as the "stance" to be used in similar movements in other kata, etc. I think the movements in classical kata are unique to the particular technique being performed. While teaching stances and standard kihon movement is useful for teaching groups of students, the subtleties of kata techniques are lost to standardization. Sorry for the disjointed post. One thought led to another and I lost track of the kiba dachi comment.
QFT one thing i've observed in my tai chi training, is that there are several movements in which the hand and arm have the same gross motion, while a simple subtle change in hand direction means that the movement is completely different to another where the off-hand does the same thing but in a slightly different position, whereas in karate both would be lumped under the same kihon waza. i'm always an advocate of very slightly altering your movements depending on the bunkai you identify with a movement while doing kata, so not all shuto barais are the same movement, nor all age ukes, nor all tetsuis, etc (yes, i know japanese has no plurals, but it's less disjointed that way ). i always had a theory that the katas started out not as collections of techniques with different applications, but as collections of the applications themselves (IE: the bunkai WERE the moves, not hidden in them), although i believe standarization to be almost as much of a benefit as it is a drawback, because it enables you to find new meanings by branching out of that standarization. /off topic
I think that ambiguity in karate kata movement is intentional. A lot of Okinawan kata appear to have come directly from China. I don't know anything about Chinese systems, so I cannot comment on their original practice. I know that Yang-Ming-Wing comments in one of his books that each movement ( I think it was in White Crane) in the form represented one particular application or set of principles. While I have read about multiple layers of application in Chinese forms, Wing seemed to indicate that in the system he studied, the number of movements in the form followed the number of application principles being demonstrated. That being said, I don't think Okinawan karate kata work that way. When I tried to research how kata were taught before the introduction of "School karate", I kept running up against two competing stories. Some sources stated that movements were taught as application and then lated assembled into a kata. Other sources stated that kata application was not taught explicitly. A certain amount of guidance was given by the teacher but the real application study was left to the student. I don't know what the truth of the matter is. I "think" the nature of classical kata movement lends itself to multi-purpose interpretation. Those that advocate for the instructor to teach the meaning of kihon movements to beginning students apparently see those movements as having defined meanings. I used to believe that, but I do not any longer. When comparisons are made to boxing (for example) or Muay Thai, the point is made that a jab has a certain utility and it should be explained along with the teaching of the mechanics of the movement. etc. etc. If you try to teach karate that way, what are you going to explain as the purpose and use of age uke? "It could be this, it could be that, but you can use it to strike, or deflect, or.............................................................". As soon as you define its' use, you limit the possibilities. I think Pat McCarthy is more correct in suggesting that you must already be familiar with the various self defense principles and techniques before kata training will yield any real benefit. I am constantly surprised when I recognize a kata movement underlying a particular self defense technique that I had learned totally apart from my kata study. (Trying to pull the thread back to bareknuckle boxing) The boxing stances in the pictures at the beginning of this thread reflect the way in which the practitioners, at that time, viewed the utility of the postures. For them, they might explain a jab as a way to sneak a thumb knuckle into your opponent's eye. The extended step might be exlained as a foot stomp or a way of trapping the opponent's foot. It just depends on circumstance. Form usually follows function but kata movement (in not having an explicitly defined function), represents generalizations of the mechanics of movement and the application of force. ............................. possibly.
Interestingly, at the time hsing i was popular in china. Drop the stance and its a almost exact photocopy (1st photo) Kata is No1. Perhaps those seeking martial arts arent usually going to be athletically gifted, so if they had mobile loose stances they can only pepper out stinging shots.. How can a smaller person generate power? using his whole body and be grounded during strike Thats why sparring is no good for self defense with 90% population. Never forget who developed "sparring" and what for. Also never forget who developed Karate Do and what for. Contemplate your defensive actions against a skilled person bent on your destruction and consider your findings... Now, back to Kata practise yes
Bare knuckle 'training' is very effective because it develops your hand strength, and in a real life fighting situation you won't have your gloves . Now as for bare knuckle organized fighting, that’s just a quick way to break your hands. Also the discussion on stance, it is extremely important and must be taken with respect and used within a fight you must always use your stance otherwise your training has been in vain due to simple bio-mechanics.
What the crap are you on about? I can't even understand your post, except that you think practicing kata is going to magically teach you how to fight, which is total crap.
Yohan, check out the "poison of sparring thread" for more of Griffin's views on the subject (this is, if the title of the thread doesn't tell you enough ).
Sorry for the bump, but I just got around to watching this. Seems to me that these videos refute pretty well the argument that old-school boxing and modern Shotokan are very similar arts. Some of the photos and illustrations from old-school boxing manuals look similar to what you see in modern Shotokan, but in motion, the styles look nothing alike in my opinion.
I've been having thoughts down that alley for some time now myself. If you look at the early rise of pugilism and the social/technical aspects that lead to the changes we have seen over time in personal combat over here in the west, I daresay it is not that disimilar to what happened in the eastern cultures. Looking at pugilism has helped me interpret quite a bit of my TKD
Regarding Bob Fitzsimmons style Dennis Jones has mentioned that he (Dennis) has a similar style to Bob Fitzsimmons and has also found links to A J Biddles book Do or Die were colonel Biddle talks about Fitzsimmons style of punching From Do or Die,Talking about the famous Fitzsimmons solar plexus punch “He throws a right that is almost a hook, If it lands well and good. If it doesn’t- follow on through, your right foot stepping forward and somewhat behind the left leg, Virtually pinning it momentarily. Your left hand meanwhile, held close to the body is held well down, almost to the floor. Your right elbow barely missing your opponents face and your left a terrific punch following the momentum of the shoulder movement-lands in the solar plexus, this ought to drop your opponent dead as a sack of cement” I also train in this style
Fitzsimmons was one of the hardest punchers ever, so lots of people claim to fight like him. Not everybody does though in my experience. I know you guys train a lot for the one-shot KO, Karl. Where's your primary targets? I only ask because Fitz wasn't a straight head hunter, he could KO his opponent with either hand by hitting the head or the body. Body punching is often a lost art nowadays though.
