Naihanchi is a method of developing one's internal muscle. An inner/closed stance provides a different feeling and a better function for learning to develop one's internal muscle. In wadoryu - as Gary pointed out - Naihanchi is the basis to proceed to Seishan and for Wado then ultimately Chinto. Off course each movement has a combative explanation as well, but speaking of purpose in wado this is about the principles of movement.
Hey AJ, Has "Zwarte Piet" called yet or have you been a good boy? I like the expression "internal muscle" I used "internal power" but I guess its more or less the same thing. Gary
Thanks, Folks: I won't take issue with any of the responses. You know what they say about opinons, right? My only point was that Clayton seemed to step in with some interesting context and pulled together things in a way that I found lacking with others. In the case of the very name "SHOTOKAN", the art developed by Funakoshi based on Okinawa-Te, identifies an art that was, from the start not intended for combat but for Physical Culture and Funakoshi makes this point repeatedly in his writings. To take the SHOTOKAN execution and look for any but the most obvious and fundamental applications is, to my mind, the same as seeking after faces and animal figures in the clouds of a Summer sky. It could very well be that practicing Hapkido for these years has allowed me to identify techniques where noone but a, say, JU JUTSU practioner might see them. I can't say for sure. What I can say is that most military training is mission-oriented and that units train to accomplish the mission. To my mind it makes sense that palace guards would train to deal with a localized threat, using the environment of the palace as a backdrop and identifying such goals as spiriting the officials out of harms way. In this manner, given the form under discussion, I found Clayton's position regarding the use of NAIFANCHI to be refreshingly original and practical in light of the history. FWIW. Best Wishes, Bruce
You hit that one right on the head. I absolutely despise this theory. Choki Motobu (another karate hero of mine) was a huge advocate of Naihanchi (he called it the fundamental of karate) and quite the martial artist, and in none of his matches can I recall him just fighting against an opponent with his back against the wall. Though I hate to use Wiki as any kind of source, these quotes on what Motobu thought of Naihanchi are interesting: * "The position of the legs and hips in Naifuanchin (the old name for Naihanchi) no Kata is the basics of karate." * "Twisting to the left or right from the Naifuanchin stance will give you the stance used in a real confrontation. Twisting ones way of thinking about Naifuanchin left and right, the various meanings in each movement of the kata will also become clear." * "The blocking hand must be able to become the attacking hand in an instant. Blocking with one hand and then countering with the other is not true bujutsu. Real bujutsu presses forward and blocks and counters in the same motion." Also, this link explains a good bit about his fighting style: http://www.dragon-tsunami.org/Dtimes/Pages/articlec.htm What's interesting is I've heard that he's broken a knee with a stamping kick to the inside, which is similar to one of the kicks from Naihanchi IMO.
The idea of fighting along a wall or across a narrow bridge is where the "interpreters" of this kata went wrong....at least according to Clayton. Rather, the concept is to screen a person out of a conflict, perhaps using the body of an incapacitated person as a kind of shield. It would probably be easier to read Clayton's own description as he makes the point with this as well as ascending and descending stairs with other forms as well. FWIW. Best Wishes, Bruce
haha how do you know about "zwarte piet". They have left already for Spain. It is costumary however, to hit you with a "roe" http://www.hannys.nl/foto/roe.JPG if you have not been a good boy that year. Afterwards they will take you back to Spain away from you parents for the next year in "de zak van Sinterklaas" http://opmaat-eduware.nl/uploadmap/Sinterklaas/zak.gif and of course, no presents.
Shotokan was developed by Yoshitaka Funakoshi and Japanese university students. The martial practice that Gichen Funakoshi initially introduced to Japan was tode, and it had none of the later adaptations that Clayton claims were actually introduced by Matsumura fifty years earlier. If Matsumura had made modifications that were to “Hide the King and Save the Princess,” then why are there no stories, no oral traditions supporting this? Itosu was a student of Matsumura, and Mabuni was a student of Itosu. Why would he (Mabuni) not mention in his many published works that the great “bushi” Matsumura had modified shurite to keep the king safe from foreign devils? Nonsense
You may want to read Clayton (see: Chapter 10). I have no problem discussing the book except if you have not read it first. Your question is answered thoroughly and concisely in the citation above. Best Wishes, Bruce
OK I'll bite. I've just reviewed Chapter 10. To summarise (calling on information from earlier chapters to give some context): Shuri-te was a bodyguard art for the defence of the Okinawan king. After the king was forced to abdicate and relocate to mainland Japan Itosu fulfilled his role in preparing the next generation of bodyguards. He taught them the form, gave them the body conditioning but didn't teach the function. He was saving that for a day when the king might return and they would take up their roles as his bodyguard. But then the king died, so there was no more need for the old Shuri-te. Itosu allowed it to fade into history, while at the same time using the form as a basis of a new karate-do for health etc. His group of students acted as the first wave of karate-do instructors, they’d never known any different. Now I personally find some aspects of this argument quite seductive, but there is one glaring problem with it. If Itosu was preparing the next wave of bodyguards then just doing the kata – without the bunkai – wasn’t going to be enough. Solo kata practice can certainly help reinforce the lessons learnt by practising the bunkai, but it doesn’t replace it. If Itosu wanted to produce a crack team of bodyguards then they needed to be drilling, drilling, drilling as a team – not endlessly performing solo kata with no idea of the meaning. But none of this really has any bearing on Ojisan ‘s initial point: Mr Clayton puts forward the argument that Shotokan Karate was developed by Sokon Matsumura as a direct result of his experience of his encounter with the American mission en route to Japan in 1853. He supposedly deemed it necessary to modify the ‘more circular soft-style’ te to produce a new ‘linear hard style’ involving the use of deep stances to generate lots of momumtum and lightning fast speed. 2 major problems with this hypothesis: 1. As Ojisan pointed out, the deep stances of Shotokan just didn’t exist before the mid 1920’s at the very earliest. On this point Mr Clayton is clearly living in a fantasy world. Just look at the pictures of Gichin Funakoshi in his 1925 book, no deep stances and none of the long range punches of Shotokan. Just look at all the other schools of Shorin Ryu that stem from Matsumura and even from Itosu that don’t show the Shotokan characteristics. Its common knowledge in the Shotokan world that the deep stances come more from Gigo’s influence than his father, Gichin. How Mr Clayton argues otherwise is quite beyond my comprehension. 2. I don’t think I really need to argue this point to be honest, point 1 does the job on its own. However, as I’m in full flow…going back to Matsumura’s encounter with Admiral Perry’s troops in 1853, I’m at a loss to see how dropping down into deep stances in order to deliver lunge punches could be an improvement on Matsumura’s existing martial skills. Mr Clayton argues that this approach produces significantly stronger, faster punches – capable of the infamous ‘one punch, one kill’. Now even if you buy into that – which I don’t – I’m afraid I can readily suggest an even more effective tactic, one already encompassed by Matsumura’s existing skills. Matsumura and his colleagues, being high ranking shizoku will all have worn 2 long metal hairpins in their hair (lower ranking shizoku might only wear one and it might well not be metal). If each one took out his 2 hairpins and stabbed the 2 nearest American marines in the neck they could have decimated the American force in a matter of seconds. Job done. No need to reinvent your martial art. Like I said earlier, Mr Clayton’s book is quite thought provoking in many ways, but sadly the main thrusts of his argument are demonstrably fundamentally flawed – seemingly in order to justify his unswerving loyalty to Shotokan. Mike
Great post!! It is difficult to know what side of the SHOTOKAN tradition Clayton claims at any one moment. For myself, I still hold with the older SHOTOKAN over the style modified by Funakoshi's son. However, if one is to roll with what Clayton writes, I think there may be a problem with nomenclature. Since Clayton holds with the nature and circumstances of Itosu's practice, it may be a bit of a misrepresentation to identify what is examined as SHOTOKAN rather than as Itosu's OKINAWA-TE. In the case of my own research, if one is to talk about Itosu, it follows that one needs to examine the forms as they are executed by, say, Shimabuku or Shoshin Nagamine rather than Funakoshi (older or younger.) Thoughts? Best Wishes, Bruce
Hi Bruce If I understand you correctly, I think I agree. This seems where Mr Clayton has gone wrong, he clearly hasn't looked at the other traditions stemming from either Matsumura or from Itosu. I think he's been blinded by his desire to paint Shotokan as the martial art supreme - which is no reflection good or bad on Shotokan, but doesn't speak well of his research skills. Have a cool yule everyone! Mike
Bruce, I don't understand. Is the Shimabuku you reference Taro, Tatsuo, or some other Shimabuku?. Both Taro and Tatsuo were heavily influenced by Kyan, as was Nagamine. Kyan was a student of Matsumura and Azato (see Fighting Arts article by Dan Smith). Where is the Itosu connection? Thanks
Totally off topic, but I would like to wish everyone a happy holiday (if it is indeed a holiday for you, if not have a great weekend)! I also saw this post on KU and thought it might have bearing on the Matsumura, etc. discussion: [/I] I Recently I trained with an exponent the family style of Matsumura Seito Shorin ryu. I specify family style because most of those who practice MS shorin are doing the public system. When I was shown the difference between the public and private systems I think I was seeing much of what Funakoshi meant when he talked of simplifying his art. What was for me very validating about the experience was that when I asked about the applications, I was told that there was a core of applications passed on from at least as far back as Hohan Soken, and believed by that group to be the applications taught by Matsumura himself. I would say that for the kata we looked at, from Funakoshi's watered down kata I was able to show around 65 - 75% of the same applications, and if not directly the same then following the same principles. The experience confirmed my belief in one of Funakoshi's other statements from Karatedo Kyohan; the one where states that only the surface form of his Karate has changed and the essence has stayed the same. _________________ D. Burton[/I]
As we are having thhoughts on Naihanchi, I'd like to share this one What do you think the raising of the arms and following circular movement imply? Also, does your style do the look to left and then right? Something to chew over whilst you eat your xmas dinner. Gary
you mean the ude uke, soto/uchi uke combo that goes with the leg raises? if so, i usually interpret them as both deflections and hammerfists. if you take them as is, the other hand can be interpreted as either a simultaneous low punch or even elbow (works better on the ude uke) or a kamae-te for the low-line, since you're acting on the high-line with the uke waza (better with the soto/uchi uke, which if used only as deflections, can contain an uraken as a kakushi-te, or a low tetsui on the "kamae" hand) if you take the previous movement into account, you can separate it into two sequences, one with the double uke waza and the age tsuki (your preferred uke interpretation, grab, pull, uppercut) and the ude uke, and another one with the second leg raise and uke, plus the koshigamae and double technique. the first one is simple, just the app of the first movement, a low kick block/thigh kick/sweep/sweep evade/whatever and a hammerfist to the ear. the second one can be the leg movement, than a block/flinch reaction, with kakushi-te uraken or tetsui if you want to, then a pull on the opponent's arm (koshigamae) and a pull to the other side to unbalance (with possible knee strike kakushi waza). alternatively, you can use the second leg raise and uke as a pull (sinking when you lower your leg), then use the koshigamae and double technique as a throw again, using a tetsui to the face, the other hand as a kagi tsuki to the ribs, and your thigh as a pivot point for the throw
TBH I was talking about the moves as shown between 0:08 and 0:15. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXrM5a2pQZo"]YouTube- Karate Wadoryu[/ame] Gary
nope, i'm stumped, then. i know the looking left and right thing is from motobu's karate, might simply be a way of instilling the common sense to look for multiple opponents before starting or joining a fight. i think i've never seen a non-wado naihanchi start with the same arm raise as some of the kushanku katas do.
