I do not want to take “sides” but I have to agree that if the poster only used the title of the thread, by itself with no other supporting words, it would have been sufficient to cause a perceptional misunderstanding.
Here is one perception of the title:
Words in print, by themselves with no tone or pitch, are taken literally or can be taken as a hidden meaning.
Literally: The title may imply that the following discussion would be of godly nature, and that all the comments in the thread were to be of divine association. Of course that was not what the poster intended.
The “Holy Grail” is associated with futility. Folklore has told of many different stories about the quest for this imaginable item. When I first saw the title, I immediately knew what the poster was referring to and I knew the ramification it would cause. Clearly, I saw that a confrontation was going to occur. I am extremely disappointed that one of Uechi-ryu’s best has violated the first law of verbal self defense:
Think about the consequences of provocative phrases before you say (in this case print) them.
My opinions of what happened:
The poster was trying to bring up some questions that may have been bothering many of us in the course of our Uechi-ryu training. The poster could have asked these questions using a different title that was not going to be perceived by anyone as offensive.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
So where does that leave the style? I've heard of folks speak of "The death of the ryu." Is it dead, or more alive than ever? What is it that people are trying to preserve, anyway? Is it the way we do a technique or kata, or the way we approach it? Is it the preservation of the style or the preservation of the substance? Is it the work of art or the artist? Is it the matter or the mindset?
I can answer some of these questions. They are my opinions and my perspective about what I want.
So where does that leave the style? It is flourishing in an ever changing and evolutional path toward excellence.
Is it dead, or more alive than ever? More Uechi-ryu practitioners are willing to question the training methods that we seniors have taken for granted over the course of our training. I assume that means that it more alive than ever
What is it that people are trying to preserve, anyway? Is it the way we do a technique or kata, or the way we approach it? I would like to preserve the original methods of training but only if it makes sense and works. Evolution, just for the sake of it, is not achieving excellence. If a particular training method is performed only because it is “traditional” and has no merit, than it should evolve. . I do not perform my wauke as I did when I first learned it in 1980. Kanei Uechi made a correction during the first summer camp that he attended after observing the way we performed the technique. I thought that maybe it was my sensei’s perspective of the movement that was wrong, but then many of the other dojo’s students were doing it similar to us. Is this evolution or misunderstanding?
Scott D said something similar to this: The Model T engine worked fine and served its purposed for its period, but would you want that engine in your car today?
Another question that was raised: <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
Can you or anyone else give me the sources that document how Kanbun breathed in his kata? I'm sincerely interested.
I do not mind changing training methods if it is proven that the traditional methods were not the correct way to perform them. Many more questions come to my mind about this method of training that I want to change. Back in the days when Kanbun first learned from Zhou Ze He, did they have the modern medical devices for measuring lung capacity and valsalva? How did they know that breathing out during a strike would diminish valsalva? Did Kanei have input from the most modern medical experts of his era as to the efficiency of the breathing that he wanted to teach?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Are there breathing methods that you or others think damage the body (other than a Valsalva while lifting heavy objects)?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Knowing what we know about valsalva and stroke, which is, it not only occurs while lifting a heavy object. It can happen while coughing, or during a strenuous horizontal movement, or sudden jerk of the neck when stressed. If we understand that this can occur while practicing our current way of breathing while training, why do we continue to do it that way?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
Am I trying to be disagreeable, Len? No. I think you know me better. Am I trying to defend a particular method? No, but I do see others developing an attitude that their way is a better way. I could agree that it is a good way, but I stop short of endorsing the practice of criticizing other possibly useful methods when the reasons for the preferences may be body type, technique preference, or lack of understanding of other methods.
Any way that is the “correct way” is the “better way” as far as I am concerned.
I would like to eliminate the “possibly useful” method if it might be “possibly dangerous” to my health.
Getting back to the title of my thread, here are my thoughts on this matter:
I feel that the poster did no irreparable harm because we can learn something about communication in these forums. I am not without faults. I learned to take a few days to think before posting this thread. I replied on his thread in a non condescending manner about the issue I was concerned with, instead of bringing up the issue that I addressed in this thread.
I have learned a little bit more about forum discussions, and I believe we all can learn to be more selective in our thoughts before we put them in print.