"The Author, it must be remembered, writes from his own standpoint!"
My personal "Interpretive" Lens!
Do You Have A Question?
If you have a question not covered in this blog feel free to send it to me at my email address, i.e. "snow" dot here "covered" dot here "bamboo" AT symbol here "gmail" dot here "com"
"Read not to contradict and confute; nor to believe and take for granted; nor to find talk and discourse; but to weigh and consider..." - Francis Bacon
Warning, Caveat and Note: The postings on this blog are my interpretation of readings, studies and experiences therefore errors and omissions are mine and mine alone. The content surrounding the extracts of books, see bibliography on this blog site, are also mine and mine alone therefore errors and omissions are also mine and mine alone and therefore why I highly recommended one read, study, research and fact find the material for clarity. My effort here is self-clarity toward a fuller understanding of the subject matter. See the bibliography for information on the books.
Note: I will endevor to provide a bibliography and italicize any direct quotes from the materials I use for this blog. If there are mistakes, errors, and/or omissions, I take full responsibility for them as they are mine and mine alone. If you find any mistakes, errors, and/or omissions please comment and let me know along with the correct information and/or sources.
Why aren't we changing the kata?
The kata practice in Isshinryu is the kata taught that is watered down to fit the school systems where karate was implemented at the turn of the century, i.e. early 1900's. We can say that this is not true and the kata are simply displaying the kicks and punches of this system which is thought of in some circles as only an impact system - not true in my view.
We can say that those deadlier techniques originally taught in Naha, Shuri, and Tomari Ti systems is hidden behind those fundamental punches and kicks, not true. The techniques were simply removed so that it would not cause concern when taught in the school systems on both Okinawa and Japan.
So, if this is true then those few who have re-discovered the deadlier defensive techniques of the kata should convert said kata back to its more effective and proficient techniques. If a down block is actually a means of grappling a threat to the ground then it should reflect the true bunkai.
How come we tend to remain in a mode where the traditional kata are still practiced and the defensive aspects are "extrapolated" from those generic moves? This seems open to error. Isn't this why kata has fallen from grace? The kata were taught watered down and may or may not have included the actual effective aspects thus leaving those ignorant to reality and thus propagate incorrect and ineffective marital systems such as karate.
In a nutshell, those who have achieved a more defensive fighting aspect from their traditional kata have the information, skill and knowledge to change the kata back to the classic practice/versions. Is it attributable to a dogmatic doctrine of "don't change the masters system, teach it the same way he taught it" forever?
I say, take the kata back to the classical form and leave it intact. Let those more commercial systems or sportive systems use old man or school children versions for the form in competition - pretty, pretty; point, point; win trophy, win trophy. If kata reflects the true defensive fighting bunkai then you can extrapolate additional defensive fighting bunkai from them. Makes sense to me!
Caveat: never change kata for change sake. change must come from long experience, knowledge and ability in the forum it is practiced. If for fighting, then it should reflect it. If for sport, then it should reflect it.
|Quality of Post:|