Your help, please!

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Mon Oct 04, 1999 4:08 pm

Nice thread. Kevinq stimulated some very interesting discussion.

Kevinq wrote <BLOCKQUOTE>quote

...there are 3-4 different senseis who instruct sparring and they all say something different.

With time, you will see this is a good thing. David wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote

...especially so if each instructor thinks his/her way is the "right" way.

That indeed is the only time it is a problem. Frankly there are far too many out there who don't get out of their dojos and look around, or are too insecure to consider anyone other than their own instructor as a source of knowledge. There is a ton of talent out there, and many different ways to do things. It is an art after all, and not a set of rigid rules. We're all supposed to do things a little different. The individual is supposed to breathe life into the style, and not the other way around. Really good instructors recognize that, and know how to separate hard principle from individual preference. Good students recognized this, are able to see through the "this is the right way" propaganda, and take useful lessons from what an instructor has to offer. David brought this point out very well indeed.

For the most part, Kevinq makes very good points - points that many instructors should heed.

Part of the art of teaching this art is recognizing the core that ties everything together. Just as a good political candidate hammers a few simple ideas over and over and over again, so a good Uechi instructor always manages to show how every idea (s)he introduces in class ties back to the principles of sanchin and our kata. It is possible to teach a broad array of techniques - if you show where they come from in the kata. We do the kata over and over again. Tieing more and more ideas to those kata makes these tools more and more valuable. This teaching technique is lost on many instructors, or maybe many instructors' karate hasn't matured enough for them to see the common thread. Hard to know which is the case. For the most part though, we all can retain more and assimilate more if we tie the useful to our core, and discard everything that doesn't fit with these principles. And now and then we undergo an epiphany which makes us totally rethink what this core is all about. When that happens, we make major leaps in our learning.

Kevinq wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote

For example, before teaching me combinations, teach me how to come into punching range of my opponent- the footwork involved. Let me get good at that, then show me the combinations.

Make sure you come to camp. I've watched Gary sensei teach, and his style fits in well with what you ask. He teaches a handful of sound techniques that fit within the way he views his karate. And when you get a chance, come visit me. I've picked up a lot of good ideas over the years about entering. And...I can teach them on the foundation we build in sanchin. And...it'll loosen up your ideas of what sanchin is all about. No more robot!! And....the combinations are a part of that footwork and entering.

David wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote

Understand that uechi/karate is largely a striking art.

Sir, I respectfully disagree. Yes, karate and Uechi ryu - as it is taught by many - is largely a striking art. But if you look at the work being done by many of the leaders in the Okinawan martial arts world, their interpretations show that what was once thought to be striking applications in kata are often grappling, thowing, and escape-from-hold applications. It's fine for an individual to concentrate on striking applications, but that doesn't mean it is a respresentative set of interpretations of the style. I often make references to the yin/yang aspect of our style. I think the "hard/soft" translation of pangainoon is actually a poor translation. Virtually every striking technique we have in the Big Three (tm) kata is also a grabbing technique. And when you train for both grip as well as weight support for these techniques, then there is a synergy that makes the technique develop faster than when you think striking alone. After all, look at how the Chinese trained the hands. Striking on makiwara? For the most part not - they carried the weighted vases. Grip strength! While the applications for Uechi choreographed for this largely Chinese art aren't as sophisticated, you will find that many of the trapping motions from Wing Chun - a sister art - work quite well. And notice the proliferation of good practitioners among us who have a Uechi/aikido and Uechi/jujitsu approach. The two arts fit well together. It's all there if you choose to view it that way. When a group settles on a set of sparring rules (like WKF) that emphasize the striking, then you are going to see a striking art evolve in its practitioners. I dare say, however, that we would practice quite a bit different if it was the UFC or other venue for which we trained to compete. Food for thought.

Gary wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote

I, too, feel that sparring practice/instruction is too willy-nilly and am working extremely hard on developing some kind of standardized curriculum that I can share with Uechi dojo everywhere.

I am eager, Gary, to see your ideas spread. I'm also just as eager to understand the art within those standardized principles of martial arts.

- Bill

david · Post by **david** » Tue Oct 05, 1999 9:52 am

Bill,

>>Sir, I respectfully disagree. Yes, karate and Uechi ryu - as it is taught by many - is largely a striking art. But if you look at the work being done by many of the leaders in the Okinawan martial arts world, their interpretations show that what was once thought to be striking applications in kata are often grappling, thowing, and escape-from-hold applications. It's fine for an individual to concentrate on striking applications, but that doesn't mean it is a respresentative set of interpretations of the style<<

I can't say I disagree with you. More a matter of perspective... (the cup half empty/full thing). Yes, an "art" is such because of interpretation. There are fundamentals and possibilities across all arts. I believe aikido is a striking as well as throwing art because I choose that interpretation based on my own preferences and past experiences. But, as currently taught, it is largely a throwing art because most dojos/instructors don't teach striking. The fundamentals -- balance, distance, timing, etc, -- are all there, but are not shown (or known, perhaps...) But, aikido's predeccesor, Daito Ryu aikijujutsu, atemi (striking) was present. Somebody put it in and it got lost. Prior to the modern period, atemi probably was not there since or emphasized since striking barehand against armor seems futile while locking and throwing would be much more relevant for combatants in armor (and weilding sharp objects.)

I tend to believe Uechi-ryu taught in the 70's and up to now is largley a striking art because that is how it is largely presented by most dojos/instructors. Not to say that throwing and locking are not there. The fundamentals -- good balance, distance, and timing are all there. Just a matter of a "broader" interpretation of some of the movements in the kata. Yet, if we look at the "traditional" bunkai and kumite handed down, what we see is a preponderance of strikes, blocks, parries and one throw in dan kumite (a questionable one at that, I think, with respect to practicality.)

The other reason I don't think Uechi is taught as a throwing/locking art is that we don't see an emphasis on ukemi (one of the first things taught in a throwing art) and we don't see kaeshiwaza (reversal techniques) which are integral to higher learning in a locking/throwing art. These aren't part of the curriculum I have seen handed down to us in Uechi-ryu. It can be argued that these were taught to Kanbun. I can't say. I wasn't there. I didn't see it, and I don't see it in today's curriculum
by and large.

>>And notice the proliferation of good practitioners among us who have a Uechi/aikido and Uechi/jujitsu approach. The two arts fit well together. It's all there if you choose to view it that way. When a group settles on a set of sparring rules (like WKF) that emphasize the striking, then you are going to see a striking art evolve in its practitioners. I dare say, however, that we would practice quite a bit different if it was the UFC or other venue for which we trained to compete. Food for thought.<<

Certainly food for thought.

It brings up perhaps that periodic thread, "Tradition vs. Evolution." Frankly, I think the ability to bring in and apply the knowledge of complementing arts/techniques into the Uechi curriculum is a good thing. Others' perspectives... not all positive perhaps. Certainly, you, MikeM, EvanP, DavidE, BobC and a few others have introduced elements into the curriculum based on exposure and practice in other arts. In so much as you have integrated them into your interpretation of Uechi-ryu, we may see an evolution (or reversal to the "golden" past) of our style. I know you and MikeM have already introduced ukemi, locking and throwing techniques into the curriculum for your respective dojos. Perhaps, in the not so distant future, we'll see "traditional" bunkais and kumites with strikes, locks and throws taught throughout most of the Uechi world...

Of course, this leads back to GaryK's question, what do we emphasize and teach first. For me, it is still balance, distance, timing, power and explosiveness in striking first. One has to know how to attack first before one can understand defense. (The lack of I believe to be the major flaw in the aikido world today.)

david

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Tue Oct 05, 1999 9:13 pm

David

You wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote

The other reason I don't think Uechi is taught as a throwing/locking art is that we don't see an emphasis on ukemi (one of the first things taught in a throwing art) and we don't see kaeshiwaza (reversal techniques) which are integral to higher learning in a locking/throwing art.

Bingo!! And what an oversight!! We have all these wonderful throws in sanseiryu (and its bridge kata counterparts) and suggested iron broom takedown in the seisan jump, and how do we interpret them? We let the person's front kick go in dan kumite. Most don't even do an interpretation of that trademark seiryu move. And we attack the person with a sword in seisan. Talk about questionable applications, that one's also a totally useless scenarios!!! Yea, Joe Sixpack jumps out from behind the bush with a sword. Or maybe I'm supposed to "dance" better when he shoots bullets at my feet. Bang, bang! Yeehaaah!

But I think omitting ukemi in basic training is not just a preference - it's a gross omission. We tool people to catch and throw kicks, but we don't teach them how to fall or escape when they are ukes. That borders on negligence! Rant, rant, rant; who gave me the soapbox anyhow?

Think you can't practice ukemi because you don't have mats? I used to think so. After being put in the position of no mats, I got creative and found out otherwise. There are some "toned down" rolls and floor work you can do that teach the essence of ukemi. And they also teach you that it's possible to survive a roll on a hard floor without a bruise. I never thought so until forced to do so. That is very empowering!

Back in the days when Jhoon Rhee dominated the Mid-Atlantic area with his takeyourdoe (Nobody bothers me, I take karate from Jhoon Rhee! Call USA-1000!) I took the adage "know your enemy" to heart. The result was a piece of choreography that was all kicks, designed to teach my students about the techniques of "the enemy". By the way, the students named it "38-special", after the music group (it had 38 kicks). Now the terror du jour is UFC, Gracie jujitsu, etc, etc. Better get comfortable with the floor, boys and girls. And yes, there is life after going down. In fact - as David suggested - going down often ensures there is life after joint lock. Once again, "know your enemy." Furthermore, all this throwing gives you a better appreciation of the power and wisdom of the sanchin stance. Trained uechika are very difficult to throw!

David wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote

One has to know how to attack first before one can understand defense. (The lack of I believe to be the major flaw in the aikido world today.)

Again, I agree. This is the absolute reverse of the above situation. Yin and yang, folks, yin and yang. This is why I learned aikido from a former green beret and goju practitioner (Steven King), I subsequently supplemented my work with Takaguchi sensei, a man who loved to have karate dans to work with. I have seen the "inbred" schools. Makes you want to cry when you see them attack. And that's how we must look to them when they see us fall. Think about it.

Thanks for your wisdom, David.

- Bill

Gene DeMambro · Post by **Gene DeMambro** » Wed Oct 06, 1999 7:24 am

Sensei Bill,

How 'bout a class or two at next year's camp with you teaching locking.throwing applications from uechi kata?

Gene

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Wed Oct 06, 1999 3:02 pm

Hmmm.. Ever notice how history repeats itself? Wasn't it Mr. Gokenkein who said "I'd be happy to teach that, but there's a better person than I..."

As long as Bobby Campbell isn't on the sidelines saying "He stole that application from me..." As long as Mike Murphy isn't slighted after his awesome Saturday evening demonstrations of Kyu Kumite ++ ..... As long as George doesn't need me for Suparinpei or Crane form for 4 hours a day (maybe I can put David Lamb to work).... As long as people realize - as David Moy pointed out - that you need a little ukemi work first.... As long as people bring their green gis (or get Susan to give you instructions on how to remove the grass and clay stains)... And if George thinks it works on the schedule....

Sure. Ask George.

Jackie Olsen · Post by **Jackie Olsen** » Wed Oct 06, 1999 4:21 pm

Everyone,

Sigh, so much to learn, so little time ... Thanks for ALL your insights. I'm learning a lot in this dicussion.

Jackie