Has Uechi been diluted

[maxwell ainley]

First of all thanks for input.

So far I identify a few themes ; Kata devoid of meaning in some schools .

Sport and educational frameworks that eventually brought uechi-ryu at a later date into that arena .

The lack of fighters .

max.

[benzocaine]

Look at the people who thought Rick sucker punching his students in a black belt test was a bit over the top.

Someone even commented that they guess they could allow themselves to be punched in the head if they knew there was a black belt in it for them. How many times does your average boxer get hit in the head in a training session?But the karate fighters of today don't want to get hit.

That was me!

To put it into context, this was before the testwas ever posted. Ihad visions of a full force punch hitting me in the head while my eyes were shut. Much like the ninja has to avoid a boken swinging at his blindfoldedhead.

Now that I've seen the actual video of it Iam not afraid, as I've seen it (like allthe other defences) was done in slow motion.

Over thetop? Hardly. Controlled and educational...yes.

[jorvik]

Has Uechi been diluted?.......guess that you would have to ask what was there in the first place? and to do that you would have to compare it with other southern Chinese styles. I know a little Wing-Chun, and I've done Hung-Gar.
the WC has a well developed methodology, philosophy and teaches you to fight from the word go it also has weapons training,sticking hands, wooden dummy and is designed as a training System.you don't have to over-search the kata to find meaning.
Hung-gar
has two man sets, loads of kata, their own version of sanchin ( the Iron Wire) and lots of weapons.....so if you can compare Uechi with them you would have to say at the very least..that it was incomplete

[Glenn]

To ask if Uechi Ryu has been diluted as a fighting art we need to look back to what Kanbun taught. Did he teach fighting only or did he also teach non-fighting aspects? What % of time was spent on fighting and non-fighting aspects of training? To what extent did they fight?

What do we mean by "fighting" anyway? Keep in mind that the pre-arranged and free-fighting kumite of today did not exist back then, from the descriptions I've seen they seem to have done something more like spontaneous fighting drills with an emphasis on bunkai. How much did they also test themselves in challenging others to real fights? That would just get you a lawsuit nowadays.

The style has changed. We are afterall learning Kanei's style (or a derivation thereof) developed in the 1950s, more than we are learning what Kanbun brought back from China. But the times, culture, and conditions have changed as well. As someone has already pointed out we do not need all the techniques today that Kanbun and his teachers may have needed in China. The question then becomes: To what extent are we charged with preserving the past?

[Glenn]

Regarding this topic and the related ZhouZiHe one, for my part I stand by the "alternative" history I co-authored about 7 years ago. You might remember that Bill.

[Norm Abrahamson]

I would hope that the way martial arts in general and Uechi Ryu in particular change over time. Without change, an art becomes stagnant. The contributions above illustrate that there is room for more than one way to do things within an art.

How many people reading this list cross train in different arts? I know that training Nihon Ju Jitsu and Judo has given me insight into a lot of what goes on in Uechi Ryu. (And visa versa) All the people that cross train add something to Uechi Ryu. I don't think that qualifies as dilution.

I've never shied away from contact, but at age 44, I don't heal like I did 20 years ago. Should I fight and train at age 44 the way I did at age 24?

There is a training continuum for individuals as well as arts. Welcome change, keep what works and toss what doesn't. The old days weren't necessarily better days.

And there you have my 2 cents.

Sincerely,

Norm Abrahamson

[Dana Sheets]

I do empathize with Laird's rant and I know he didn't mean to intentionally exclude women. Laird works and trains very hard and we're lucky he comes and posts on these boards and pushes folks out of their comfort zones. I have so much respect for folks who put decades of their lives into training.

However I never saw the good old days of Uechi so I can't speak to those. Honestly - I'm not sure I would have trained at some of the schools the way they've been described on these forums.

What I can speak to is witnessing an inordinate amount of pounding of people in Sanchin, teachers who've said that if a woman can't do the drills the way they do them they don't belong, and the overbearing presence of an attitude that people should toughen up damn quick or walk out the door of the school.

Wanton violence against students isn't teaching martial arts. To me that's a great way to turn away the kind of people who could really benefit from finding out that they really do have a fighting spirit within them - it takes a teacher to bring that out. And it's also part of the reason this style has scarce few women in it.

Some people can take hard hitting in six days or six weeks - others need to build their spirit before they can build their body. Do they not belong in our schools? If you want to train champions - take only the best but I don't think training Uechi is about just training champions.

[MikeK]

The style has changed. We are afterall learning Kanei's style (or a derivation thereof) developed in the 1950s, more than we are learning what Kanbun brought back from China.

That's a great point Glen and I think it applies to most arts. For me what's important is what my sensei is teaching me now. If it is or isn't what Kanbun or Funakoshi taught then so be it I'll live with it either way.

But the times, culture, and conditions have changed as well. As someone has already pointed out we do not need all the techniques today that Kanbun and his teachers may have needed in China.

Regarding cultural change, back in the 80's my Jujutsu sensei removed the gi grabs from many of the techniques. Why? Because in his work as a bouncer and bodyguard when he used them he'd end up with a handful of loud thin polyester cloth and no bad guy. In class he even ditched the rugged judo gi for a lighter karate one and t-shirts that could rip. I don't think he was diluting the style but keeping it current as a functional art.

[Josann]

I've been watching this one with interest. I think it all comes down to why one studies uechi. If it is to learn to defend yourself then I think that it is watered down. There's no question. How many spar, cross train, put on pads and fight occasionally? I'd guess most don't. I don't think it is because of fear, although that could be a factor. Most I'd guess develop some self confidence ( some would say self delusion) that they use outside the dojo. Most consider themselves to be "good" at karate if they can do a good kata or a good choreographed kumite. Can they fight? Who knows.

I agree with Laird. I also think that the majority of those that study martial arts aren't as adept at self defense as they think. Let's remember it is not only uechi. Ever watch an aikido class? Kids with "black belts" are a dime a dozen and many of them couldn't defend themselves. Adult karate is the same.

If you are in karate for development, spiritual or otherwise then that's fine. If you are looking for self defense, then you need to go deeper than what you are probably learning in class. You need to spar, pad up and do full contact fighting, do scenario training, hit the heavy bag, and do a demanding fitness regimen regularly.

Don't forget that uechi is one of the best systems for fighting. Low kicks, natural stance, hands up, body conditioning etc. It adapts itself to real defense if one chooses to pursue that aspect.

Laird's comments, although threatening to some, are right on. Uechi is the basis of our karate, but each of us needs to look into why we study karate. We do the same kata and exercises, but each of us should be striving to develop our own unique style of karare based on our interpretation of the style.

Josann

[David Swanson]

I agree on both sides of the issue as much as a contradiction it may seem at face value.

I'd like to share some surface observationa and a train of thought.

My original instructor was very, very good with form but not neccessarily freestyle fighting. He was very picky and soon put overly confident students in their place. He taught in a controlled setting. The students he turned out were good natured, humble a couple went on to become amazing fighters as well as known for really good form. The applications were taught from the form with realistism thereby giving the unprepared a wake-up.

My living situation changed so I went to another school that was better on the application but the form had much to be desired and the students had attitude.

Not completely satisfied, I looked at yet another Uechi school that emphasized sparing. The form was completely horrible, the freestyle fighting was baseless. I saw some of the same students from that school sparing at a tournament. I witnessed one student who was very aggresive, uncontrolled, and ultimately defeated by someone who kept composed and was fighting from a sanchin stance. (The uncontrolled student brags of being thrown out of more tournaments than most people attend).

I've read in The Uechi-Ryu/Mattson book a section where in Okinawa free style sparing isn't introduced until 3rd Dan.
Essentially stating that the form and control aren't developed thereby creating bad habits etc. Hence, the crazy club I saw with what would be better resembling poor kick boxing passed off as Uechi-Ryu. It could be any style for that matter. I believe it's a westernization of the style made to make the impatient westerners etc. think they're learning something.

I ended up back with my first instructor.
I was so glad to see good form and disciplined students. I went on to test for Shodan after all the hopping around.

So in a nutshell – I think it makes sence, if you're teaching a fighting style then the emphasis on application should come out of the form, in order to gain the most benefit of that style.

If you're in a hurry and want to just fight round after round then there's Tai Boxing, or Kickboxing etc.

I always thought of Martial arts as self defense rather than offense. Sometimes there needs to be some offense in the defense. But I'd rather avoid the fight in the first place. Left no choice I'd stick to, throat, palm-heal to the base of the nose, leg and groin kicks, even eye strikes if it can make the end come near. If I'm to fight, and more appropriately, defend my life it's going to go as brutally fast as I can possibly make it. That is not out of an aggressive nature but rather the reality of the style.

So I believe while banging on each other, getting used to being hit, trading blows in a freestyle manner can get you used to certain variables like not anticipating and reacting after being hit etc. I think it dances with it's own non-realisms. As mentioned, taking things out of the system for sport dillued it. It's not what it's for.

Defense is seriously no joke. Martial arts are supposed to be a last resort of deadly force. – Sport and tough guy competitions are a different matter. I think in that case it might be good to study a little of everything – assorted techniques from different styles etc.

I don't think it has any real application in sport other than form. If you take away the deadly techniques and focus on freestyle sparing it's no longer Uechi-Ryu. It becomes a handicap. Taekwondo would be better or just tai fighting or plain old kick boxing.

One of the last things I want to do is trade punches with someone especially if something can be ended as fast as possible. Being unassuming and having a secret weapon, discipline in the art, and restraint seems to have an appeal.
I also read something written by an amazing master whos name slips me at the moment.
He said that the reason he began the martial arts is because he didn't want to fight in the first place.

[maxwell ainley]

Dana, if you go back through some of the threads on Kanbun sensei ; you get a totally different picture from past times on banging the student in sanchin etc ,a lot of care went into the process ,out of control sparring too was delt with .
Obviously the emphasis upon hard and tough will always swing too and throw ,I think various individuals will follow that pattern ,remember at one time the only route into uechi-ryu was via the lengthy sanchin process ,mind body spirit training .it was there for all ,without banging on the student .

[Dana Sheets]

Hi Max,

Yes - I wasn't talking about the early history of Uechi rather the turn it took in the 70's & early 80's when it seemed (according to the anecdotes posted) that the measure of a student was what you break over them in Sanchin. That's obviously a bit of an exaggeration - but that's sort of how it comes across from the stories.

I know that Kanei is said to have never hit a student in Sanchin - only used his fingers to push and press and feel. This is how Miyagi Sensei check our sanchin when the women's friendship tour visited his school. This kind of a soft check is much more of a challenge.

And as many have pointed out - we can't know exactly what went on in the entire history of the style. Oral history is notoriously unreliable with each teller adding their own flavor and memories to the legend.

Dana

[jorvik]

This contact thing really puts me off
I've had it happen were I've knocked a blackbelt out in a Uechi class because he was doing all this contact sch*tt, i told him to lighten up ....he didn't...........so he went BoBo's ( aided by a right hook )..........anyway I train with some very bad people, and they are all very gentle and very respectfull..reason being that if a fight starts they know that "when two fierce tigers fight, one is killed and the other is seriously injured"
...and for the non-aggressive you should be able to bring them on without fear........look at weightlifters takes a lot of pain to push yourself to lift weights.as much pain as fighting

[IJ]

I think it's fine if people do their uechi or whatever as if it were the slow, relaxing, tai chi from the Celebrex ad--provided people KNOW that they're doing a diluted art and don't go pick fights on the subway with it. But, there's this second kind of dilution that REALLY kills me... I went to a McDojo recently where they did JKNOS--Japanese Karate Not Otherwise Specified--and had clearly diluted a lot of their art. We were practicing the left, right, left round house kick combo... in sparring, everything was point focused (I never scored a point because I didn't kiai with the motions, but you could tell my partners felt I'd scored--and they got points for punching or kicking my elbow in sanchin and wincing). They had kata where you block sequentially and turn 180--yes folks, that assailant must have gotten too tired to continue! (does anyone think that the focused motion out at head level might be a strike as well??).

But here's the kicker--first, they were unaware of the dilution they'd done. In fact they were convinced, despite knowing nothing of Uechi, that there were no open handed techniques and that the grabbing I was doing was an Americanization because karate only uses the fist. Period. PLUS the mental journey was a wash as well. I get yelled at because my shoes are on the left of the rack instead of the right. (Please get that right in the future. And say "USS!" and bow when I critique where you stack your shoes! Even if you've been doing karate far longer than me! etc). They seemed unaware of a way in which a sensei can be respected without a gallon of buttkiss, or that discipline can be demonstrated without sequential posing and assuming of stances, utterances, more posing, stancing, yadda, yadda, yadda before doing the nearly-all block kata. Such a yawn.

This is a journey for the mind only if you're a rotten 12 year old. Sadly, the grownups seemed content.

[maxwell ainley]

Dana ,thanks I understand exactly now ,what you meant .Thanks.

max.