Has Uechi been diluted

[Mills75]

now that is really so what as a newer student only having been in a little over a year and only being gokyu needed to hear truly. that some teachers present it differently and so on and so forth and it doesn't mean it's robot-ryu.and thanks to Bill also and I do understand yes i am thankful for my sensei so thank you and and your words were very inspiring and understood also I love to see like you guys put so well for us newer students that alot of this get's caught up in words or terminology but in essence we all are brothers care for Uechi and just because some may call it this or that it may be one in the same.I like to see when we can say hey i look at it this way and you look at it this way but in the end we both want it to accomplish the same end.
thanks alot really this post made me happy to see..

Best,
Jeff

[Stryke]

I've always heard that "uke" means "to receive". Is it one of those words that does have dual meaning in Japanese with one of those meanings being block

I beleive this to Mike , I`m one who says there arent blocks , but once again it`s my terminology of what a block is ....

you can guard against attacks but I call those guards , you can flinch , I call them flinches .

On the receive I interpret is as someone projecting force towards you and this is a strategy to deal with it , no more no less .

Terminology does lead to intent though , I also dont like the attacker defender tags ...

Even still... Am I "receiving" the back of someone's neck when I knock them out with my circle after whacking their groin? That would be quite a reception...

Receiving force from them Bill , as in there projecting lines of force , your attacking and absorbing hence not a block . But heck it`s only terminology .

what I dont like is he punches I block ..... bUt It`s all IMHO , dont expect anyone to agree .

hope no one takes my ongoing request for understanding and respect for our fellow Uechi practitioners in the wrong manner. I've always encouraged pushing the envelope. I watch with excitement as Rick Wilson experiments with new and untried (in Uechi at least) territory. No one on these forums objects to looking at new (and old) concepts and ways to interprete and apply our Uechi. But lets do it in a positive manner.

Absolutely George , good post .[/quote]

[Mills75]

i like george and van don't see any movement defined as one thing or another or locked into a single application.but i do think it's so much more productive to make real differences to students and point of real benefit than to argue over silly wording to me talking about how someone refers to something is tomato or tomatoe ya know. I think what george said is profound and what i was trying to say in my first post but didn't accomplish and people thought it was put down or I meant they didn't train I meant what George said so eloquently that practice is in the dojo and these silly word battles don't help that the words should serve to help that practice not confuse over what very well be little or no difference at all in teaching method but only silly differences in wording..

Jeff

[Mills75]

it reminds me of another tidbit in here that was brought up on by ben when he talked of posting so say this or that about posting and that is totally fine some say it's a tool for this or that level for this stage or that stage but as ben points out in Alan Dollar's book who i respect tremendously and his teaching from the Shinjo family who I also respect tremendously as all of you well the shinjo family teaches to post so there ya go it's another thing some will agree and some will not on what to do but noone can argue that both the people who teach it like the Shinjos and the people who only use it for this or that are great martial artists alike..

Jeff

[MikeK]

I was at one time a Uechi student! And I can tell you that if someone had taken the time to explain these 'deeper,' more realistic applications to me, instead of, 'Yeah that's the Uechi 'circle block thing' maybe I would have stayed longer. Rolling Eyes Many teaching today still think this is a 'block', and only a block, what of them? Words are important in teaching. Words that don’t accurately convey meaning: Don’t accurately convey meaning!

Jim, I'm a recovering blocker and I hear you. Much of it falls to translation of terms and an influx of under trained black belts. After awhile it takes on a life of it's own. I'll take the low block as done in Shotokan, aka gedan barai, as an example. I'm no Japanese scholar but some simple research shows that barai is how the word harai is pronounced when it follows another word. More research shows that harai is Japanese for sweep or sweeping. No mention of blocking a low punch or kick. So I'm not blocking a strike I'm moving/sweeping it to the side which also shifts the kickers balance. Somewhere along the way as karate moved to the West these motions were moved from counters to pure defensive movements. But look into the kata and these things appear for what they are. "Down Blocks" are almost always done while moving in followed by and attack. The move is there in plain sight but most karate schools teach it as a block to stop a front kick instead of an entering move to put an opponent at a disadvantage. Same for uke. Search for the word uke and we find it means receiving or to receive. Still no mention of the word block and if we look into the kata with proper distance and an opponent in mind most of these uke look like counter strikes to sensitive body parts. It's such simple things that make karate a functional fighting method, but the simplists things get forgotten.

[Rick Wilson]

Jeff rather than detract from this thread please see the thread I started on the verbal Self Defence Forum concerning your comments:

http://forums.uechi-ryu.com/viewtopic.p ... 889#106889

[gmattson]

To clarify, in case your post was directed at my posts pertaining to the subject of "blocks".

With respect:

I fail to see how something that contains multiple movements, concepts and component's both defensive and offensive is more accurately termed a 'block,' which among other things clearly implies stoppage, halting and waiting...

The word "block" is obviously a bad choice of words to describe the many possible uses for these techniques.

I tried to point out that not everyone performs these techniques as "stoppage, halting and waiting" movements, just because the "word" may mean "stoppage, halting and waiting".

On the other hand. . . in describing the problem with misusing words, I pointed out that there is a danger in mislabeling techniques and postures with words that rigidly compartmentalize these techniques and postures.

[TG]

"... only having been in a little over a year and only being gokyu ..."Mills75




That's remarkable!

TG

[Tokezu]

Folks-
Reaching back a bit....which is just my way of saying that this post may be late in arriving and slightly off the current vector…

Has Uechi Ryu been diluted?

Ainley-san might be asking if Uechi Ryu has been watered down or he might be asking simply if it has changed. The answer is most likely yes in either case, I would suggest.

But (there’s always a butt around when I speak)-

I’ve come to believe that the right answer is not nearly as important as the right question. The correct answer to this question is likely dependent on what you are really asking, i.e. is Uechi Ryu less effective OR has it changed in the last 100 years?

Asking myself both these questions made me think quite a bit (thank you for that!).

Here’s where my thoughts took me:

Let’s stipulate for the sake of just getting through this post that Uechi Ryu is diluted, changed, watered down, and “less effective” than the chuan fa Shushiwa taught AND the karate Uechi Kanei Sensei taught. The question I then must ask myself is, “Is it still worth my time and effort?”

Easy answer: Hell yes.

When I think about the hundreds of Dan-level Uechi ka I’ve seen, been taught by, and with whom I have trained over the years, I can say that just about 100% of them could better defend themselves than an untrained person.

Personally, how could I possibly be less prepared for an altercation after throwing (literally) thousands of punches, kicks, and blocks on the dojo floor?

And these personal conclusions and observations don’t even take in to account the health benefits or the social benefits we get from Uechi Karate training.

So in conclusion-

Has Uechi Ryu changed in the last 100 years? I’d say that would have to be a YEP.

Does the study of Uechi automagically mean that I will be the biggest badass on the planet, be able to “win” any physical altercation, and be assured of never being touched by an aggressor? Um….no. But is that why I study? If so, I am focused on the wrong goal (IMOHO).

On the other hand, is Uechi Ryu still a worthwhile pursuit? I guess that would depend on one’s goals, but for me, the answer is a resounding HELL YEP!

Thanks for the interesting topic!
DL

[MikeK]

I think it's hard to try and qualify if Uechi is less effective as a personel protection tool now, than it was back when Kanbun was doing it. First we're picking one person, Kanbun, and comparing the entire Uechi-Ryu family against him. I very much doubt I'm more effective than Kanbun was but if we look at the top Uechi karateka out there now they might be more effective or at least close.

I'm also wondering if we're being fair to the current crop of sensei by assuming what we're doing is all inferior to what was being done100, 50 or even 10 years ago. I think intelligent focused change is good and natural for any art to remain effective. I'd like to think that we've made some progress with building on the foundation that we were given.

[Glenn]

As I see it, part of the issue here is what we are trying to learn and pass on. My understanding is that in the "good old days" of a century or so ago you learned to fight, not a style. You learned whatever you could from whomever you could. There were no formal, stylized tests, your successfullness was gaged by your ability to win fights. The successful ones learned what they could and figured out what worked for them, and became good at it, essentially synthesizing their own personal style. The teachers had the ability to both win and survive.

At some point these personal styles became pigeon-holed into formal named styles, and success was measured by stylized tests. I imagine a good part of the reason for this was a decline in opportunities to fight, not to mention a decline in being able promote your fighting and surviving abilities, without getting arrested and sued. Social perception of and attitudes toward fighting is much different now than it was then. Most parents nowadays would not send their kids to someone who is known to fight, that person would been seen as not a good role model.

So where does that leave progress in the formalized styles of today. For the ones who learn from many, and adapt and synthesize what they learn to what best works for them, are they still within a style? At what point is it still Uechi Ryu and at what point does it become MikeK Ryu, Wilson Ryu, Glasheen Ryu, Strike Ryu, etc.?

[Bill Glasheen]

At what point is it still Uechi Ryu and at what point does it become MikeK Ryu, Wilson Ryu, Glasheen Ryu, Strike Ryu, etc.?

That's a really important question. However I hope it isn't predicated on all of us needing to see and practice a ryu the same way or not.

I've always preached that the individual breathes life into the style, and not the other way around.

- Bill

[Dana Sheets]

Glenn,

That's a really great post. You make very important points.

[Tokezu]

Glenn-san,
You make great points (as usual).

First- about personnalizing our style:

I've been reading Bishop's book from the late 80's about Okinawan Karate and Kobudo. He states just what you did: folks learned from whomever would teach them; teachers encourage cross learning from other teachers. Those what fought well passed on their style. It seems to me that back then they were more proud of which kata they knew than what they called how they fought. (there's a sentece!)

Bishop relates the begining of "styles" to the introduction of Westernization after WWII (anyone notice that we have WWW now?) and the desire for "sensei" to earn a living from their styles.

When does "it" become our own personal style? Hopefully somewhere after Nidan but before Yondan???

When does it stop being Uechi? Hopefully never. If it's still hard/soft, a little bit o 'dis/a lil' bit o dat, open-handed Sanchin, bent kneed, shoken using, soketo(e) poking stuff, it's just a personnalized version of Uechi.

Isn't that the ultimate goal, after all?

On a slightly orthoganal note- About why we train and how we apply what we learn:

I've just been reading about the "transition of martial arts styles" with respect to swordspersonship in a book on Musashi I heard about here on this forum.

In that book ("Musashi: His writings and Art" or some such title), the author is discussing how the tranisition from regular "use in war" to "there ain't no war so how do we apply our hard work" affected the swordspersons of the day (19th century). Again, the author (and this one ain't Bishop) suggests that the Westernization of Japan had a signifcant effect.

I wonder what that says about us?

respectfully,
DL

[Glenn]

DL,

I agree with your observations, but will single out one in particular to comment on.

It seems to me that back then they were more proud of which kata they knew than what they called how they fought.

DL

"What they called how they fought". I think this is an interesting way of looking at it. Naming something as nebulous as a "style" is one thing. But what about naming the way you fight? We see that in kungfu movies, but how many of us can look at someone fight and say "ohhhh, you study Uechi Ryu"?