CEB
Junior Member
Old Judo Player
Posts: 71
|
Post by CEB on Mar 1, 2005 10:19:08 GMT -5
Yamakura Sensei is using this as a conditioning exercise I would assume. I would think that the variations you have also cited would back up my point. Just for the record. Demura changing his stuff: He told me that himself about 5 years ago during a dicussion of common roots. I asked him about his kata vs a kata that I did that had some stance differences. Both of us had learned the kata through Taira Shinken lineage, him from Taira Shinken myself from a second generation student. I asked why he thought there were differences and he matter of factly admitted that the stance change was his and told me the reasons why he changed it. Shimabuku making changes: AJ Advincula, first generation student of Shimabuku was in Okinawa when some of the changes happened. Some of them had combat related reasons, some of them were because he was getting older and balance was more important to him at the time than speed and power. He encouraged his students to look at the move from both sides. Thanks. Good teachers change stuff. Karate is deep. My Goju comes from three sources. My official teacher and 2 other teachers who's people I have a good relationship with. All 3 change things all the time. It is bad form to say , but that's not the way you taught it last time sensei. Once at a class someone who was somewhat new to this way of teaching questioned Kimo Sensei on why the Kakuho he was teaching was not the same as it was when he had seen it a little while earlier at another seminar. Sensei explained because how this group was further along the road and the lesson today was different than it was in Madison. He said to see Matayoshi's entire kakuho would take about 8 hours ( I think it was 8 hours may have been 8 days but you get the point) and it is a very a relatively short form. Russ was kind enough to show me Matayoshi performing kakuho on video from 4 different occasions. All four were different and all 4 were different than Kimo Sensei's basic pattern. ;D I teach things incrementally also especially Seisan. It is just a whole lot easier to teach Goju Ryu this way. Seisan with out the aftermarket add-ons is a green belt form. In it's completed form it is very advanced. Yes Sensei uses Sanchin as bigtime conditioning when you are young. To a lesser extent as you age. FWIW, we do Sanchin 3 different ways or levels if you will. (None I think look like whooping crane.) In my limited understanding it is geared toward energy development. No shaking. Shaking in the context of our Sanchin tells me that the muscles are out of balance. Certain muscle groups are pulling harder than the equalizing muscle groups. Someone who is really good can do a very hard tense Sanchin and he will not look tense. 20-25 years ago Sensei told me the purpose of Sanchin was to be able to take a punch. The purpose and methods evolve over time. We never changed Sanchin we just teach it different to beginners than we do to the old farts. Ways we practice Sanchin. 1) Hard - Muscles can be classified into 2 types. Muscles that help send the technique and the muscles that don't help. In Basic Sanchin we tighten everything and loosen the necessary non-helping mucles just enought to allow the technique to move. Otherwise the hand doesn't go anywhere. This is isometric strength training. Great if you are young and can't take a barbell set with you where ever you go. I also believe this imprints into the brain what muscles do what job. 2) Softer but still slow while still concentrating on the breathing aspects. 3) Fast - The only muscle tension is useful muscle tension. I believe the early dynamic tension helps teach the body what muscles eventually need to relax. I may be off base here but I think it helped me in this regard. Method 3 is the eventual goal in terms of fighting in my opinion. Method number 2 is very good in terms of health, expansion of lung capcity etc. Method 1 build strength and lung capacity as well but is very stressful and I don't know how good it is over the long haul. All 3 are Shoulders Down, Elbows In, Stomach Out. I didn't explain any of this very well and I have to get to work. But basically you see previews of all three ways of doing this if you watch the kata of Goju Ryu You will see the kaishu or advance forms begin with Sanchin punching and it will be done one of the three ways. In our group once you learn the next to last form (Seisan) then it is practitioner's choice how you perform the sanchin movements in the beginning of the kaishu forms. Please note - This is only offical Ed. I'm just an old Judo player and do not speak for any of my teachers.
|
|
|
Post by olddragon on Mar 1, 2005 12:13:44 GMT -5
Thanks. Good teachers change stuff. Karate is deep. My Goju comes from three sources. My official teacher and 2 other teachers who's people I have a good relationship with. All 3 change things all the time. It is bad form to say , but that's not the way you taught it last time sensei. Once at a class someone who was somewhat new to this way of teaching questioned Kimo Sensei on why the Kakuho he was teaching was not the same as it was when he had seen it a little while earlier at another seminar. Sensei explained because how this group was further along the road and the lesson today was different than it was in Madison. He said to see Matayoshi's entire kakuho would take about 8 hours ( I think it was 8 hours may have been 8 days but you get the point) and it is a very a relatively short form. Russ was kind enough to show me Matayoshi performing kakuho on video from 4 different occasions. All four were different and all 4 were different than Kimo Sensei's basic pattern. ;D I teach things incrementally also especially Seisan. It is just a whole lot easier to teach Goju Ryu this way. Seisan with out the aftermarket add-ons is a green belt form. In it's completed form it is very advanced. Yes Sensei uses Sanchin as bigtime conditioning when you are young. To a lesser extent as you age. FWIW, we do Sanchin 3 different ways or levels if you will. (None I think look like whooping crane.) In my limited understanding it is geared toward energy development. No shaking. Shaking in the context of our Sanchin tells me that the muscles are out of balance. Certain muscle groups are pulling harder than the equalizing muscle groups. Someone who is really good can do a very hard tense Sanchin and he will not look tense. 20-25 years ago Sensei told me the purpose of Sanchin was to be able to take a punch. The purpose and methods evolve over time. We never changed Sanchin we just teach it different to beginners than we do to the old farts. Ways we practice Sanchin. 1) Hard - Muscles can be classified into 2 types. Muscles that help send the technique and the muscles that don't help. In Basic Sanchin we tighten everything and loosen the necessary non-helping mucles just enought to allow the technique to move. Otherwise the hand doesn't go anywhere. This is isometric strength training. Great if you are young and can't take a barbell set with you where ever you go. I also believe this imprints into the brain what muscles do what job. 2) Softer but still slow while still concentrating on the breathing aspects. 3) Fast - The only muscle tension is useful muscle tension. I believe the early dynamic tension helps teach the body what muscles eventually need to relax. I may be off base here but I think it helped me in this regard. Method 3 is the eventual goal in terms of fighting in my opinion. Method number 2 is very good in terms of health, expansion of lung capcity etc. Method 1 build strength and lung capacity as well but is very stressful and I don't know how good it is over the long haul. All 3 are Shoulders Down, Elbows In, Stomach Out. I didn't explain any of this very well and I have to get to work. But basically you see previews of all three ways of doing this if you watch the kata of Goju Ryu You will see the kaishu or advance forms begin with Sanchin punching and it will be done one of the three ways. In our group once you learn the next to last form (Seisan) then it is practitioner's choice how you perform the sanchin movements in the beginning of the kaishu forms. Please note - This is only offical Ed. I'm just an old Judo player and do not speak for any of my teachers. Sanchin is about 3........ so to me having your sensei teach it 3 ways proves a connection to what you do in Goju and what I do in Isshin ryu. One of the things about being around for a while is that Sensei can sometimes relax around us. I have seen the same thing that you talk of with some of the first generation students I have trained with. The interesting part is that they identify what is theirs and what is their teachers. Imagine this..... these folks have inherited the reins of the style, that means they are "authorized" to give direction to the style. What we are seeing is their personality being injected into things. When it comes to our own experimentation with Bunkai application we have all be guilty of arguing that we should be allowed to experiment. When it comes to the lineage we all seem to argue that things should remain the same. The lineage is passed on through individuals that have their own distinct personalities. If we see the bunkai application of kata as the distinction of the style, and application changes would affect the kata slightly, realising that individuals with different preferences will inadvertently make small changes. Over time a multitude of individuals will give the subtle changes that today represent the different styles. Once sensei joked with me in a crowd "WHO TAUGHT YOU THAT" I stated he did and he loudly denied it..... as he turned his face from the crowd there was quite a smirk on it. I realized later that what your talking about, different lessons, also applied here, I was simply in a "different" group the day he yelled at me and I complied to doing it the "way of the day" There is nothing wrong with these changes as long as the lesson is not lost, as long as we maintain as best we can the intent and the history. We as individuals are on a progressive journey, we evolve and over time tend to concentrate on different aspects of our training. I'm not sure that any style is a "complete" style. As senior students, learning that we are not perfect and that we still have lessons to learn is an attitude that we need to pass on. Mike O'leary
|
|
|
Post by Eric Ling on Mar 1, 2005 21:58:19 GMT -5
Hi all,
Thank you for all your illuminating posts – learning so much from you folks.
Firstly, I again feel the need to state my stand:-
• For the longest time, we (me and my White Crane peers here in my part of the world) have read/heard that Karate researchers/historians have effectively unearthed confirmation of roots. Books were published, ceremonies and reunion gatherings held. Here in SE Asia, we read about this mainly in Kung Fu magazines published in Hong Kong and Taiwan. I know that there were quite a few books published in the West listing these “proofs” of karate roots in China. • Few of us really bothered with these – none of our business. We knew the motivations that the mainland Chinese had when they receive these historians/researchers and we knew even back then that much of what was touted as the “truth” cannot hold water, not for long. The “discrepancies” are just too conspicuous.
And the discrepancies?
Most Karate that we know of has only remote association with Whooping Crane or MingHe.
Besides incongruities in history/chronology as pointed out by Ed, there are contradictions found everywhere in this proposition.
I, being a Minghe player all my Kung Fu life, am principally interested in substance. I have spent many years collecting/compiling all the variations of Minghe and in all honesty, cannot vouch for this karate/MingHe alleged link.
Mike, you ask how certain Chinese forms are maintained through time. My answer is frankly, to a very high degree as far as MingHe is concerned. Unlike the other “major” schools of Chinese Boxing like Shaolin, Tai Chi and Emei, Minghe transmission, up till maybe the last 50 years or so, has been very insular. Confined mainly to within families and clans. We are relatively a small sect.
Sir, even today, how many MingHe schools are you aware of? Still a very closely-knitted small family where lineage lines are clear.
Most of the MingHe’s forms that are now touted as evidences of Karate's source are really a PUZZLE to me?
1. When were these forms incorporated into Karate? Namely Papulien (8 consecutive steps) and Nipapo (28 strikes)? 2. Classical, during the development of these ryus, or personal by individuals?
As I understand it, some of these Minghe forms are presented as “proof” of Karate/MingHe relationship.
I even heard suggestions that some facts were “twisted” in order portray a certain picture.
Humbly, I think this is “irresponsible” that’s all.
This is not about politics.
More about what is MingHe or what is not.
As far as this discussion stays within this confine, I would be gladly sharing what I know.
Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by Eric Ling on Mar 2, 2005 11:48:24 GMT -5
Okay folks, A sample page from a report published by a group of Chinese White Crane researchers. These reports are not publish in any mass distribution magazines but rather more for White Crane interest groups, in other words, White Crane families. Most of the researchers themselves are from various White Crane families themselves. Some of these reports are really very exhaustive in covering histories, methodologies and principles. The page showing here list the forms used one time in Fukien White Crane. The interesting thing is that this compilation is slightly different from what Martin Watts brought back from China in his recent trip. However there are 3 forms noteworthy for Karate researchers:- 1. 7 steps San Chiem 2. Character 10 San Chiem 3. 36 hard strikes 4. 13 defenders I have in my collection, many of these research materials written by various White Crane study groups. One of my most priced must be the ones written by the late GM Kan Teck Guan from Eng Choon China. More often spoke of as a Ngo Chor Master but many believed his real Kung Fu training was Eng Choon White Crane.
|
|
|
Post by Eric Ling on Mar 2, 2005 12:17:59 GMT -5
A series of movements that should be recognizable to most of you Karate folks - yes ?
|
|
|
Post by olddragon on Mar 3, 2005 2:28:54 GMT -5
A series of movements that should be recognizable to most of you Karate folks - yes ? The centre one could be a move out of Wansu kata!!!! The rest I'm not sure, Mike
|
|
|
Post by olddragon on Mar 3, 2005 2:41:19 GMT -5
Hi all, Thank you for all your illuminating posts – learning so much from you folks. Firstly, I again feel the need to state my stand:- • For the longest time, we (me and my White Crane peers here in my part of the world) have read/heard that Karate researchers/historians have effectively unearthed confirmation of roots. Books were published, ceremonies and reunion gatherings held. Here in SE Asia, we read about this mainly in Kung Fu magazines published in Hong Kong and Taiwan. I know that there were quite a few books published in the West listing these “proofs” of karate roots in China. • Few of us really bothered with these – none of our business. We knew the motivations that the mainland Chinese had when they receive these historians/researchers and we knew even back then that much of what was touted as the “truth” cannot hold water, not for long. The “discrepancies” are just too conspicuous. And the discrepancies? Most Karate that we know of has only remote association with Whooping Crane or MingHe. Besides incongruities in history/chronology as pointed out by Ed, there are contradictions found everywhere in this proposition. I, being a Minghe player all my Kung Fu life, am principally interested in substance. I have spent many years collecting/compiling all the variations of Minghe and in all honesty, cannot vouch for this karate/MingHe alleged link. Mike, you ask how certain Chinese forms are maintained through time. My answer is frankly, to a very high degree as far as MingHe is concerned. Unlike the other “major” schools of Chinese Boxing like Shaolin, Tai Chi and Emei, Minghe transmission, up till maybe the last 50 years or so, has been very insular. Confined mainly to within families and clans. We are relatively a small sect. Sir, even today, how many MingHe schools are you aware of? Still a very closely-knitted small family where lineage lines are clear. Most of the MingHe’s forms that are now touted as evidences of Karate's source are really a PUZZLE to me? 1. When were these forms incorporated into Karate? Namely Papulien (8 consecutive steps) and Nipapo (28 strikes)? 2. Classical, during the development of these ryus, or personal by individuals? As I understand it, some of these Minghe forms are presented as “proof” of Karate/MingHe relationship. I even heard suggestions that some facts were “twisted” in order portray a certain picture. Humbly, I think this is “irresponsible” that’s all. This is not about politics. More about what is MingHe or what is not. As far as this discussion stays within this confine, I would be gladly sharing what I know. Thank you. Eric: Frankly I have never heard of "proof" that karate was related to Minghe. I am aware of individual karate people training in many forms of chinese arts. That is the story and that is the problem. There are handed down stories but that is about it. I have read in many books including the Bubishi that the old Te master originally studied with Chinese masters, I have read that Chinese masters were present in Okinawa. I dont think that anyone ever said that they did more than train with them and then incorporated what they learned into Okinawa TE. The Japanese then adopted karate during this century and they adapted it. Korea took from several sources and developed their own arts. I'm not sure what your getting at here, but I'm not arguing your point, weather it came from Crane, or Minghe, or where ever for the most part the issue is not that I am trying to prove the root, My theory is that what ever the root was adapted to the okinawan philosophy and way of doing things. My theory is that to look at kata and expect to find the proof is a hard thing to do. Mike
|
|
|
Post by Eric Ling on Mar 3, 2005 3:26:29 GMT -5
Eric: Frankly I have never heard of "proof" that karate was related to Minghe. I am aware of individual karate people training in many forms of chinese arts. That is the story and that is the problem. There are handed down stories but that is about it. I have read in many books including the Bubishi that the old Te master originally studied with Chinese masters, I have read that Chinese masters were present in Okinawa. I dont think that anyone ever said that they did more than train with them and then incorporated what they learned into Okinawa TE. The Japanese then adopted karate during this century and they adapted it. Korea took from several sources and developed their own arts. I'm not sure what your getting at here, but I'm not arguing your point, weather it came from Crane, or Minghe, or where ever for the most part the issue is not that I am trying to prove the root, My theory is that what ever the root was adapted to the okinawan philosophy and way of doing things. My theory is that to look at kata and expect to find the proof is a hard thing to do. Mike Hi Mike, Maybe I’ve been reading all the wrong books and given wrong sites to visit.hahahaha In any case, let continue our exploration in the same spirit – to get as close as possible to the truth. If we think looking at techniques and forms is not the way, then Sir, tell me what is your proposition? And before I forget, let’s make it fun! I don’t do well any other manner. Thank you Sir…………
|
|
|
Post by olddragon on Mar 3, 2005 22:55:08 GMT -5
Hi Mike, Maybe I’ve been reading all the wrong books and given wrong sites to visit.hahahaha In any case, let continue our exploration in the same spirit – to get as close as possible to the truth. If we think looking at techniques and forms is not the way, then Sir, tell me what is your proposition? And before I forget, let’s make it fun! I don’t do well any other manner. Thank you Sir………… Well I have read lots on the internet also, doesnt mean its true. I have read books where people put forth theories, still doesnt mean its true. Now if you have someone who says his father trained with someone.... now I start to listen, If the books have a reference, be it interviews, or something that dates back, then I listen. Even the Bubishi, Anybody got an "original" copy, the oldest copies only date back to the late 1800's to my knowledge. So what is left, kata? well by their own admission the Okinawans have made changes. So lets look at sanchin, as someone said earlier, "The three battles" Something that would spark my interest would be if the name has a similar meaning, leaving room for translation of course. Second would be the lessons it teaches, if the name is similar, if the lessons are similar, and third and final if there is a resemblance I would have to assume that somewhere in the background there was a connection. There are only so many techniques in the world. Styles are defined by the focus of philosophy. Simply put one style may focus on power, another movement, another straight linear motion, another circular. The Okinawans have proved that you can use the same root kata to develop all of these different focus's. What is the root of Sanchin? I understand that in China there is a similar kata? And that it teaches similar lessons? is that right? Mike
|
|
|
Post by Eric Ling on Mar 4, 2005 11:20:44 GMT -5
Hi everyone, One of the reasons San Chin (San Chiem in Fukien) is practiced so thoroughly in Fukien CKF; iron-shirt training. In this particular case, Tai Chor or Grand Ancestor Kung Fu. One of the major styles of Fukien CKF, this style is propagated in Singapore as San Cheen Do. Founded by my Tai Chor Sifu, Teo Choon Teck, San Cheen Do is a big proponent of San Chiem training. The pictures below show Sifu Teo doing various “iron-shirt” stunts after San Chiem. Note that freshly broken glasses are used throughout – usually from my fav bottle; Carlsberg hehehehe. But seriously, these performances are no joke. Seen some seniors tried this and cutting their hands, feet and body. Besides rubbing his palms, jumping and rolling on glass, Sifu Teo usually finish with having granite slabs sledge hammered on his body.
|
|
|
Post by Kosokun on Mar 4, 2005 11:35:12 GMT -5
I remember my old, fat, physics instr in college doing similar things. Heavy concrete slabs (easier to get than granite, especially when you need to demonstrate for several sections of Physics 1A) while laying on a bed of nails. Rob Hi everyone, Besides rubbing his palms, jumping and rolling on glass, Sifu Teo usually finish with having granite slabs sledge hammered on his body.
|
|
|
Post by Mercury on Mar 4, 2005 14:38:46 GMT -5
Eric wrote
I would recognise this as Saifa.
|
|
|
Post by Mercury on Mar 4, 2005 14:41:08 GMT -5
Ooops .. and Suparenpei
|
|
|
Post by Eric Ling on Mar 4, 2005 18:24:08 GMT -5
I remember my old, fat, physics instr in college doing similar things. Heavy concrete slabs (easier to get than granite, especially when you need to demonstrate for several sections of Physics 1A) while laying on a bed of nails. Rob Arrh Rob, Can your old physics teacher do this :- www.namyang.co.uk/gallery/movies/what_is_shaolin.htmlBrowse thru their clips and you see folks breaking stuffs using neck, head and even "familiy jewels". Or maybe your old physic teacher want to try this:- Or maybe share a Carlsberg hehehe...........
|
|
|
Post by Kosokun on Mar 4, 2005 18:49:37 GMT -5
Arrh Rob, Can your old physics teacher do this :- as I write this, I've not gone over to the link you provided, so I'll limit my comment to the picture you posted, above. Presuming that you're speaking of the fellow in the middle, there, Yes, my old physics instructor could do that, I"m sure. I could too. No big deal. Now, emerging from that unscathed is a completely different matter. BTW, that Carlsberg sound's good! Rob
|
|