Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Karate-Jutsu vs Karate-Do

Karate-do: is comparable to any formulated, systemised or prescribed technique, which is deemed good or bad in comparison and perspective by opinion of persons not involved in the moment or movement, or a speculation of it's effectiveness and efficiency, subject to a set of prescribed rules or engagement restriction. Karate-do needs to emphasise the spiritual aspect of the Jutsu, with self discipline, mental and physical training. Emphasis is placed on how a technique is performed rather than it's effectiveness.

Karate-jutsu: can resemble and include any of the attributes of Karate-Do, except the effectiveness and efficiency of any technique, is demonstrated with a view to a submission, disrupt, damage or kill the opponent, no other criteria other than survival. Karate-jutsu is the Martial Art of kill or be killed or any derivatives of survival.

This ones an old one

Going back in time when you had to read Japanese to fully benafit your grade.
Posted by Picasa

Not Quite Karate-Jutsu Feeling is Believing

A Leap of Faith, how much do you trust your technique?
Posted by Picasa

Friday, March 07, 2008

Old Ruins Master & Student

Posted by Picasa

Priciples, Concepts & Style Differences

The principles and concepts they all adhere to are the only things that bind them together as a package of styles. Similarity in styles is a consequence of the similarity to the principles and concepts they seek to achieve by all too often repetitious endeavour. Which after a while becomes altered to fit the pattern of event? Prescribed principle and prescribed concept in a quasi surreal situation and environment leads to unrealistic systemisation with differing emphasis's.

Each style is therefore different to the others. Obviously the origins of styles gives a more accurate account of their perspectives, which can be seen through the teaching and tradition of its founders and followers alike, if you have studied concepts and principles over styles. If you haven't, it will be difficult to understand the differences. Observations on emphases within techniques and applications are good indicators as to the overall differences.

Most styles with a competitive agenda have an embellished and over pronounced criterion that is subject to an observed opinion i.e. Judge or Referee, which almost always reflects in the grading syllabus, trend and tendency of that style. Different emphasis, different objective, different in personification to a similar style.

The strictly combative or tactile effective self defence styles are usually obscure in technique formality because of the range and diversity of the participant's abilities, strengths and weaknesses. Perhaps not as recognizable to many without experience and insight to the objective and circumstances of techniques used. However the effect should be the same. If you were to combine competitive with combativeness........all is lost and subject to different interpretations of said principles and concepts.

Take any of the styles you care to mentioned, look at them on YouTube, you can see the difference generally. Each exponent is different generally, apart from the clone syndrome effect often seen in the sporting or grading arena. Any technique taken from any system or style, if practiced and performed by 10 different sized and shaped students were to look the same, the conclusion would have to be that the prescribed form is too rigidly adhered to. Which we know can only be for affect and not effect. Also the effort would have to be different for each person because of the dynamics involved.

It would have to be different. If you practice a style over the natural tendency of your own skill and ability to achieve a prescribed effect, you will be working against two principles and two concepts. The preparation and stimulus alone would be different for each of us given a similar task, depending on the circumstances. The circumstances dictate the means not by the means dictating to the circumstances.

Alan Platt

Saturday, March 01, 2008

Evolution of Kata

Excerpt from Harry Cook's History and evolution of kata:...The great master of Shorin Ryu Choshin Chibana pointed out that "Karate, as it is transmitted, changes every few years. This is a common phenomenon. It happens because a teacher must continue to learn and adds his personality to the teachings. There is an old Okinawan martial arts saying that states that karate is much like a pond. In order for the pond to live, it must have infusions. It must have streams that feed the pond and replenish it. If this is not done then the pond becomes stagnant and dies. If the martial arts teacher does not receive infusion of new ideas/methods, then he, too, dies. He stagnates and, through boredom, dies of unnatural causes."...

It may be a common phenomenon..............however the teacher may just detract from the original form and omit or misrepresent by misunderstanding into his teachings. The pond will be sucked dry of some of the infusions and be diluted by watered down interpretation. The boredom of repetition without understanding then gets translated by inadequate authority.

Sounds about right to me.