Hi Mitlov, I have only been casting an eye over this post (really busy at work) - so forgive me if I am going over old ground. On the subject of you not being entirely happy with the syllabus in you group (or at least the way things are taught to students), have you raised these issues with your instructors? The way I look at it, you pay money for your training, you deserve to told the answers when you ask why? - or at least given the tools to find the answer. I certainly do not subscribe to the "don't question just do" way of things - I think that stinks. To my way of thinking thats a good way for instructors to hide their lack of knowledge. Gary
Teachers must NEVER get into the HABIT of teaching. Every class should take the students out of their comfort zone . DIRECTION must be given to cause the student to investigate FOR THEMSELVES with encouragement from the teacher. Sensei really means example NOT teacher.So the sensei should provide the student with challenges that causes them to question and seek answers. Too often classes are organised to the lowest common denominator. This is wrong as the same principles or techniques can be trained at whichever level individual students have reached IN THE SAME CLASS. Teaching is a responcibility and if the student is not progressing providing he is showing the proper spirit..the teacher must come into question.
Actually Koyo you are right. I have corrected my statement about deserving the right to be given the answer, to deserving the right to be taught in a way where you can find the answer - with quality instruction. Best way to learn is to realise. Gary
Amen to that, but this small point (big point in my world), is more and more overlooked these days. It would seem that with a little bit of knowledge you can teach whatever you want. Gary
I have on a few occasions brought this up, though delicately (because I don't want to be the annoying guy in class who is constantly telling the instructor that they're doing things wrong). When I asked why we don't focus more on learning sparring (specifically getting at both jiyu kumite and shobu ippon kumite), I was told "that's not really what we do here," and "kata is the soul of karate." When I asked why the basics we learn don't look like how they would look when executed against a resisting opponent, I was told "because this is the basics way of performing the technique. We're doing basics now." When I asked why I'm not allowed to compete in tournaments, I was told "because a couple green belts had gotten hurt, including one guy who broke his leg, and the organization decided that no one below brown belt should be competing."
That sounds like the kind of answer given by someone who doesn't really understand what they're doing or why. Regardless of whether your kihon either has or doesn't have value, the teacher should be able to explain why you're doing it that way (of course, you may or may not agree with the explanation). That said, I understand that they may not always have the answer immediately to hand. Sometimes I'm asked a question that I can't immediately answer (at least not in full). I may need to mull it over or think more deeply about it, discuss with others even. But the student deserves an answer, and I - as a teacher - have a responsibility to answer as best I can, even if all I can say is "I don't know". Mike
The old excuse of "this is how we do it in basics but for real we shorten it or adapt it" is one of the main reasons "trad" martial arts stagnated and sporting martial arts (MMA for example) ascended. For me it's an utterly invalid excuse. You don't see it in any other sport or physical activity as far as I know. You don't see Tiger Woods practicing a formal and elaborate golf swing with excessive movement and then shorten it when he actually hits a ball. You don't see boxers learning some wide and fancy left hook that needs adapting come fight time. They simply practice the movement in the form that it's needs to follow to work in the environment it needs to work in. What you see is what you use. Now...that's not to say that Karate "blocks" don't work in other ways with the complete movement as taught. There are clearly applications of these movements that use their full range (I taught a Thai clinch counter using gedan barai last Sunday that seems to work for me well enough). But then with such applications you don't need excuses for why they need "adapting" for real because there isn't that disconnect in the first place. For me when someone says "We do it differently for real" they are basically saying "I have no clue why I do it like that in the first place". Oh and Griffin....you don't seem to have the first clue about Gracie Jiu Jitsu, the UFC or MMA.
I understand what you mean, but there is a big difference between requesting answers to your question and telling/implying/assuming an instructor is wrong or doesn't know what he/she is talking about. Maybe it isn't, but that in itself doesn't equal bad Shotokan school. No denying that in term of its pedagogy, a lot of modern (particularly Japanese) karate is very kata based. When I say kata I of course mean it in the broader sense ie -Kihon, Ippon/Sanbon Kumite and Solo. Of course with this kata based pedagogy the properties of "Shu-ha-ri" are subsumed (or should be) for it to work in its entirety. As discussed at length on this board however, this is very rare thing (in modern karate) and a great deal of trust between teacher and student is required. More importantly the instructor must know how to manage this - making the jump from kata to kumte as it were. Maybe that’s more to do with the litigious society we live in today? Gary
Hi Mitlov I'm not trying to defend the school you train at, for all i know they could be a bunch of rat bags that have no idea about shotokan karate, i have seen a few schools like this where they use the heian kata to fall under the umbrella of shotokan but apart from learning for their next belt they never look back on it again maybe your school is one of those. What i would like to comment on is the fact that you a kyu grade is interupting the instructor to tell them thier wrong??????????? I realise now you have done other martial arts and its obvious you haven't learnt any respect from them but are you trying to tell the instructor it should look more like boxing??? Kinda like me walking into a boxing gym and saying hold on i wnat gyaka tsukis and shuto ukes you guys are all wrong. If you know so much about shotokan maybe you should open up your own shotokan school, and just grade yourself to red belt. Would you interupt an mma coach in the middle of his class in front of his students to point out in your mind a mistake? Most schools and i'm not just talking about shotokan, try kyokushin for example would either kick you out of the school for such bad manners or punch you out so you dont come back, oh but i forgot your in the usa the instructor will probably get locked up for it. If you are geniuine and really want to progress you dont interupt the instructor half way through the class and point out what you think is a mistake, you should casulay enquire about it in the locker rooms before or after the lesson, your instructors must be very patient and gentle people imo. I've never seen a kyu grade below brown belt belt asking to do shobu ippon. What about if you get a broken nose loose some teeth and loose part of your eye sight from a blow, will you want compensation, how will it look to a judge if a yellow belt was let loose in a shobu ippon match and got seriously hurt. Or if you get two green belts to belt each others heads in, is that what you call progress? It abvious we have totally diferent views about karate but hey thats what makes the world go round if we were all the same then it would be dull. Live long and prosper.
It seems to me that this 'fracture' in the understanding and practice of martial arts is cropping up all the time, i hear it in the dojo and here on this forum. Martial arts covers a wide spectrum of activities, some people are more interested in teaching and learning at the 'art' end of things, some at the 'martial/fighting' end of things. In an ideal world, you would simply ask your instructor, at the appropriate time and he would give you his answer- if you respect him, you will listen (but not necessarily agree) and if he respects you (and knows what he is teaching), he will give you more than "because i said so..." All movements in Kata and form are there for fighting reasons. But also, a particular way of moving may be more to do with the teaching/learning process than the application of the technique directly to reality. For most beginners, big obvious movements are more visible and therefore easier to copy(?) and also easier to correct. If you can't perform an uchi uke with good body rotation when the movement is big, how will you know you are still doing it effectively when the movement is small? How would you know if you are losing some less obvious but effective part of a technique if you just scrapped all the bits that didn't seem 'real' enough to you? When learning to write, children learn straight lines and good curves so that their writing is legible and any problems with the form of their letters can be corrected. As they become more comfortable with it, they progress to joined-up writing and the forms become looser, but retain the same structure, in order to allow them to write faster. This is the same process. I am 3rd Kyu student, i have been studying Wado for 5 years. There are certain aspects of what i want from the art that my classes don't give me. I don't blame my teacher for this, it is his club and he teaches the aspects he is interested in and wants to teach. Anything else is up to me. Be patient. Study and train hard. Maybe if a technique isn't working for you the fault isn't with the technique? Examine it more closely and yourself. P.S. i'm not normally this deep, it must be lack of coffee!
Reading comprehension 101, Magpie. I hate to be rude, but SERIOUSLY. Never said they were rat bags. They're great people, incredibly nice. I just am becoming increasingly frustrated with their approach to martial arts. That isn't even REMOTELY what I said. I said I had asked three questions. I have never once told them that they are doing anything "wrong," or even had "wrong" enter the discussion. I never interrupted anybody. I never asked that we adopt boxing mechanics. Do you really think it's disrespectful to ask an instructor "why don't our basics look like our sparring?" and "why don't we spar more?" and "can I compete?" These conversations all occurred when (1) the instructor asked "any questions?" or (2) after class while we were chatting and walking back to our cars. That's disrespect to you? Seriously? Your personal attacks and tone are unwarranted and unappreciated. Next time, read my posts again before you dive into a rant like this. Why not? I've never seen any other martial art that includes competition, but doesn't allow someone who has been practicing for three years (not six weeks, but three years) to compete. First, I'm not a yellow belt. Not that belts are really an indication of anything besides rank within the organization. Second, if I was injured in a tournament, I would not seek compensation from the organization. When I fenced and when I did taekwondo, we signed these neat little things called "liability waivers," that acknowledged that we were aware of the inherent risks of competition and prospectively waived any lawsuits against the organization or other competitors for injuries received during a tournament. I assumed I would sign one before competing in a Shotokan tournament as well. Nope. You shouldn't be "belting each other's heads in." But I'm struggling with how someone is supposed to progress in a striking martial art without ever striking with another person or having another person strike you. Certainly so.
That's pretty much the reaction i expected from reading your previous posts. Look , Mitlov is actually raising some valid questions here , i've often remarked that at around brown belt level karate seems to be taught differently , and having noticed this for himself , and i suspect seeing how incredibly well Machida uses Shotokan in the ring , Mitlov is just comparing his own training to what he's seen outside of his group. The brutal truth is , i suspect , that in alot of american schools Shotokan , indeed karate in general , sucks , just post a video of a competition from the 80s or earlier for americans to see and they'll be amazed at the level of contact etc. I can't speak for aus , but in the UK we've always had good hard kumite available in the shape of the KUGB , so when people from the US talk about how soft shotokan is i cringe a little. What i'm trying to say (admittedly quite poorly) is as much as you Magpie think Mitlov is trying to rush forward too soon , to the rest of us it looks more like you're advocating holding people back , and adding a "too deadly" into the equation really didn't help.
Getting back onto the subject of blocks and how they appear in sanbon kumite for example, imo its not so much about the block as it is teaching the things that go with with it. Things like correct distance and timing and co-ordination. These are the things that you can then take forward into your free fighting, which I have no problem introducing students to at white belt. Gary
That makes sense to me. But couldn't we learn that just as well by doing sanbon kumite with kumite-style blocks/deflections instead of kihon-style "age uke to the attacker's forearm"?
Yes we could , though for the record i dislike sanbon ippon and hate gohon ippon as it's taught in the majority of schools. I think alot of these drills are throw backs to when Funakoshi was trying to introduce Shotokan to schools.
I know what you're getting at Gary. I'd agree that Sanbon Kumite can teach timing and co-ordination, but it's terrible for teaching correct distance and ingrains quite a few bad habits such as moving backwards in response to an attack, and poor use of Karate Uke techniques. I can remember a number of years ago when I dropped all the basic shotokan kumite drills that started with a step back. The students who had never done them were outperforming the students who had (despite their greater experience) from the word go.
To ArthurKing.. Hi Arthur I very much agree with the gist of your post, but there was one thing I'd like to pick up and qualify if I may. Yes, but only if the kata was not modified by someone with a different agenda in mind. It seems clear to me that Funakoshi and his followers modified kata with the specific intent of making them more dynamic and athletic, not to improve their combat efficiency. Since then various people have changed the same kata even further, for a variety of different reasons. That said, I think many movements in modern kata do contain the kernel of the original combat principles, but there are certainly movements that have been modified to such a degree that renders them useless (from a purely combative point of view). Mike
Hi Mitlov Firstly let me say i'm sorry for acting like an ass, i do agree with you after 3 years of training you should now be doing sparring. Hey Guys I think all the methods within traditional karate are pretty good from brigging you up to an advanced level even after you get to an advanced level gohon, kihon kumite are still great ofcourse there not performed like a color belt class and generally in a black belt class if you fail to block with timing anticipation and distance the you will get clocked. I haven't really seen anything thats so much better than the traditional methods. But they have to be trained with aliveness and a non complaint partner.
No worries; we all have our off days. Glad that's settled. Is it really aliveness and non-compliance when you say "your role is to step backwards and block five times and then counter with whatever you want; my job is to attack with five stepping punches in a row"? To me, even if done aggressively, that's still compliant and not really "alive."
