If I remember correctly, Wado Ryu is essentially Japanese budo whereas Shotokan is Okinawan budo modified to fit for the japanese. So of course Shotokan might feel like it's closer to Okinawan te styles. Wado ryu actually doesn't practice Bunkai in the common sense but kaisetsu. The difference between the two in practice is pretty minimal, but you ask my instructor who's passionate about "classical budo" there's an important difference in the kanji EDIT: Not sure what you're trying to say about fitting bunkai into the training with Shotokan...more than Wado Ryu? Have I read that right? If that's the case, I'd suggest this is far more down to your perception of the two from what you have experienced than anything else. ...And I have no idea what you are trying to say here.
It's the opinion of a few of us (JWT included I think) that Wado practiced in most dojo today is closer (in appearance at least) to Funakoshi's karate than a lot of Shotokan you see these days. I think what we see with the very deep stances and linear power that one automatically associates with Shotokan, is more to do with what subsequent instructors (Nakayama etc), have added. Gary
Beaten to the punch by gary ! If you look at old footage of Funakoshi [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jH9TDqeAPFA"]Gichin Funakoshi - Historical Video Series - YouTube[/ame] You will see much higher stances and movements that generally look less "Shotokany"
As far as i'm aware there is a lot of Wado clubs around that are called 'Wado based' because they have apparently borrowed other influences outside of Othuska's creation,mainly other karate styles..Iain Abernethy is one example i know of.It seems from my understanfing that he has taken the Wado frames and brought it towards more okinawan style training(more bunkai oriented practices etc) Im wondering how much Wado ryu allows one to experiment before its not called wado anymore? I guess i'm drawn towards more Okinawan style karate training where as far as i can see one can be more creative.
I think he means that in Shotokan the study of bunkai isn't frowned upon (even if it isn't taught) and is often encouraged (as a private study) which follows the Okinawan tradition, whereas in Wado bunkai can be seen as a no-no.
As far as i'm aware Wado ryu is a Japanese Budo,were karate is Okinawan in origin and has a different approach to ones personal development.
Sifu Ben I do see your point about Wado looking more like shorin ryu etc and shotokan looking further removed but i'm talking more of approach to training beyond the struture of the forms
You can't! It's not what, it's how in terms of Wado! Most Wado ryu schools do not approach the training of kata in order to create potential sd resolutions from individual tecniques / combinations. Rather, they are trained to engender correct principle of movement that can be applied in a more holistic way. We also have shed loads of jujutsu techniques that are learned in tandem to augment this process. Different process to achieve the same end result maybe. Gary
By separating kata from anything combative, and separating any sparring training from anything really combative. Much karate (and TKD) has done this very successfully, leaving a tripartite art of kihon, kata and kumite which far from building to an holistic whole (in terms of any combative worth) creates three different disciplines. Personally I far preferred the karate I did which ignored the early kata. Rather it set the goal as knockdown sparring and created kata to suit that environment. The kata could be performed solo, against an opponent with pads, or against an opponent attacking with increasing intent. It seems to me that this form of training was far more direct and useful for its goal than most modern karate practice, and I suspect most Kung fu would come under that description as well. Having said that, I love doing a traditional pattern/kata, me Mitch
As Mitch said, many Japanese styles have essentially extracted the techniques from the kata and practiced them without reference to the kata. This is essentially what "kihon" is. Take a common kihon sequence: mawashi geri, uraken, gyakuzuki. This doesn't appear in any kata that I'm aware of, but is a really common training sequence in shotokan because the uraken ensures that your round kick has to be travelling towards your opponent; if your weight is falling off to the side or backwards, your uraken will never land. I've found that in shotokan, you spend much more time on kihon than kata because, I think, the kihon have evolved over the years to transmit principals that are of relevance to the kumite (sparring) style, whereas kata has evolved (if at all) in isolation from the kumite. I suspect jwt would say that this makes the kata a better source of self-defence techniques because it hasn't been polluted by competition sparring. Anyhow, the closer relationship that exists between kihon and kumite means that I prefer training in kihon->kumite rather than kata->bunkai. In a sense this is the same as what Mitch said about the way Enshin modified it's kata to suit the sparring. In shotokan, you've kept the original kata, but modified the kihon to resemble the sparring.
Surely the problem with this approach is that if the Kihon evolve then the older element is lost? It removes the (main) function of Kata as a record of techniques and principles. Also I suspect the study of Bunkai of a single intermediate form would yield more drills than the entire Kyu Kihon syllabus. If your Kihon are geared towards Kumite sparring then if your interests lie in other areas then you can't explore those areas without creating new Kihon, and the only real way to do that is through Bunkai.
That's why on my Sim Days the karate people who don't regularly do bunkai struggle. They try to apply the competition techniques and distances, find that they can't, and fall back to pushing, clinching, wild haymakers and tackling. The people who drill close quarter bunkai on the other hand tend to go straight into applying the Kata skill set, because that's what is is designed for. I can see why Pizza Dog prefers to do his Kihon/Kumite pairing. The Kihon combinations were designed to replicate the new kumite movements (as were some of the oldest bunkai demonstrated in mid 20th century texts). For greater variety and as a technical exercise techniques were lifted from Kata and patched together in sequences of no combative value, but which train hip rotation and co-ordination. An example of this is the retraction of the uke arm in soto ude uke (outside receiver) backwards before it swings forwards to intercept a punch. Outside the normal context of freeing yourself from a clinch this movement has very little purpose. Given that the odds of a person Pizza Dog's age being in a self defence situation are incredibly low, there's no reason why he shouldn't focus that way. Obviously it turns his Kata into little more than a memory and balance exercise, but if he's just training for fun and fitness, why should he want anything more? I train to a completely different model. My 'kumite' is bunkai, the Kata is an occasional solo rehearsal of bunkai, and my kihon is impact development work related to the kata and bunkai. Both methods get you fit. One trains for sporting competition, one trains for self defence. Both are fun.
But then I don't get the point of having Kata at all. Indeed, wouldn't it be better to remove all pretence of combatives and develop it purely as a combat sport?
There is a school of thought to suggest that there is no difference. By virtue of the fact that when practicing Kihon, you are moving through a combination of preset moves / movement - Kihon is also Kata! Yakusoku Kumite - is also (paired) kata - as it is a prescribed form. Basically, in Karate (and Japanese Budo as a whole), there is Kata and everything else is kumite. Gary
