Hoshin,
If memory serves I saw your Seisan under the tent at camp a few years ago. Looked good, strong, and fluid to me. And your intensity throughout the form was the wonderful. The only thing I remember that stood out as a big variation in my mind was that on some techniques it seems that both your feet came off the ground at once - and when I asked you about it you told me you what were training and at the time and it made sense.
Variations only matter when you forget what you changed and why you changed it. Dan ranks, at a certain level, only matter if you plan to teach. And as a teacher is it your responsibility to know your system inside and out. Knowing the system includes the foundation, additions, and variations.
I feel there is a huge difference between transmission of a system and transmission of your karate. And that's part of what GEM said in his post.
If you wish to be someone who transmits Uechi-Ryu then you must decide if you are going to transmit the entire tradition or just your opinion of it. Ryu-ha developed as a way for individuals to show their alignment to a certain tradition. Just look at all the variations there have been on the traditions of Judaism, Chrisitanity, and Islam. Traditions (by the vary name) implies that you're doing things that have been done before.
Several folks, not just senior folks, reach the point where they wish to transmit their understanding of a martial art and thus leave a formal Ryu-ha. It makes sense. If a tradition has certain elements and you do not wish to transmit those elements (keep up the tradition) then it would only made sense for you to start your own Ryu-ha (new tradition.) That way you acknowledge to the world and yourself that you are leaving behind things that have been done before and doing them in a different way.
At our school we do 8 kata, body conditioning, pre-arranged fighting, and free fighting. Do big circular movements with our arms We strike with our toes, thumb knuckles, index finger foreknuckles in a round fist, double foreknuckles in a flat fist, fingertips, the backs of our wrists, the backs of our hand, the sides of our hand/forearm (open and closed), the shins, the knees, elbows in a variety of directions....and we tell the history of our tradition as best we can. We tell stories about a man named Kanbun Uechi, Kanei Uechi, and many others. We talk of tigers, cranes and dragons and body, mind and spirit. All these various things are parts of the tradition of Uechi-Ryu. Politically - I train in a school affiliated with Shohei-Ryu. The tradition we train is Uechi.
training variations
Moderator: Available
-
Rick Wilson
“If you wish to be someone who transmits Uechi-Ryu then you must decide if you are going to transmit the entire tradition or just your opinion of it.”
This raises the ever constant question of what IS Uechi Ryu?
Uechi Kanbun brought Sanchin, Seisan, Sanseirui and conditioning out of China.
Everything since then could be said to be someone else’s opinion of what Uechi Ryu. Regardless how great the master was who added things (thinking of Uechi Kanei Sensei here) they were adding their opinions of Uechi Ryu.
Everyone who added a bunkai, a Kumite or a drill etc was adding their opinion of Uechi Ryu.
By a strict interpretation of your definition, if you teach anything beyond the big three and conditioning, then you have decided NOT to teach traditional Uechi Ryu but rather your opinion of it, or your own Ryu.
I think everyone (including Uechi Kanbun Sensei) was teaching their opinion and that is the way it SHOULD be done unless Uechi Kanbun Sensei was here himself to say no.
To me you are not teaching Uechi Ryu if you are not basing what you do on the Uechi Ryu Kata. (For me that is also the eight rather than just the big three.)
This raises the ever constant question of what IS Uechi Ryu?
Uechi Kanbun brought Sanchin, Seisan, Sanseirui and conditioning out of China.
Everything since then could be said to be someone else’s opinion of what Uechi Ryu. Regardless how great the master was who added things (thinking of Uechi Kanei Sensei here) they were adding their opinions of Uechi Ryu.
Everyone who added a bunkai, a Kumite or a drill etc was adding their opinion of Uechi Ryu.
By a strict interpretation of your definition, if you teach anything beyond the big three and conditioning, then you have decided NOT to teach traditional Uechi Ryu but rather your opinion of it, or your own Ryu.
I think everyone (including Uechi Kanbun Sensei) was teaching their opinion and that is the way it SHOULD be done unless Uechi Kanbun Sensei was here himself to say no.
To me you are not teaching Uechi Ryu if you are not basing what you do on the Uechi Ryu Kata. (For me that is also the eight rather than just the big three.)
Dana;
thank you for the nice words on my kata. however my own kata is a work in progress. due to the fact that i no longer have a formal uechi teacher most of exploration/ changes have been made over the last 3 years. any and all changes /variations i have made are more a look to the past with a feel for reality rather then making things up that look or sound good.
yes the IUKF seems to be the most open organization. others on the opposite side seem to defer to the infamous "THEY" .. i made a dojo visit once and the instructor made it point thru out the night to express to me again and again ..."THEY want us to do it like this". THEY of course being the Okinawans. as if we are just dumb americans who dont have a brain, nor our own seniors who deserve just as much respect as any Okinawan.
Hoshin
~~~~~
thank you for the nice words on my kata. however my own kata is a work in progress. due to the fact that i no longer have a formal uechi teacher most of exploration/ changes have been made over the last 3 years. any and all changes /variations i have made are more a look to the past with a feel for reality rather then making things up that look or sound good.
yes the IUKF seems to be the most open organization. others on the opposite side seem to defer to the infamous "THEY" .. i made a dojo visit once and the instructor made it point thru out the night to express to me again and again ..."THEY want us to do it like this". THEY of course being the Okinawans. as if we are just dumb americans who dont have a brain, nor our own seniors who deserve just as much respect as any Okinawan.
Hoshin
~~~~~
Rick ;
lets not forget that those kata we take as standard were done differently in years past. i am quite sure the kata Kanei made the standard, was different then Kanbun's kata which was probably not the same as shu shi wa, or his teacher.
which is kind of the thought i had when i started this topic. if you express variations in your karate are you a rebel or the next creator in a long series of variations.
"IT IS ONLY TREASON IF YOU LOSE"
Hoshin
~~~~~
lets not forget that those kata we take as standard were done differently in years past. i am quite sure the kata Kanei made the standard, was different then Kanbun's kata which was probably not the same as shu shi wa, or his teacher.
which is kind of the thought i had when i started this topic. if you express variations in your karate are you a rebel or the next creator in a long series of variations.
"IT IS ONLY TREASON IF YOU LOSE"
Hoshin
~~~~~
-
gmattson
- Site Admin
- Posts: 6073
- Joined: Wed Sep 16, 1998 6:01 am
- Location: Lake Mary, Florida
- Contact:
Rick..
My earlier statement was that I follow my teacher's and his teacher's way. . . that is my tradition. However, I don't think anything I do or teach today would upset Kanbun, if he were here today. Granted, if I invited him to teach a class, I bet he would have lots of things to add and probably some things he would like to clarify, but I don't think he would be unhappy with what I've been doing.
On the other hand, I don't think Kanbun would be upset with anything you are doing either.
I am a believer in maintaining the core and expanding the shell. This gives us all great latitude in interpreting what our teachers have given us. I've maintained most of what my teacher and his teacher gave me, although it may look much different today than in 1958.
Believe I wrote an article on this subject which is somewhere on this site!
On the other hand, I don't think Kanbun would be upset with anything you are doing either.
I am a believer in maintaining the core and expanding the shell. This gives us all great latitude in interpreting what our teachers have given us. I've maintained most of what my teacher and his teacher gave me, although it may look much different today than in 1958.
Believe I wrote an article on this subject which is somewhere on this site!
GEM
"Do or do not. there is no try!"
"Do or do not. there is no try!"
-
Rick Wilson
Hey George:
You bet, some would say that is your “opinion” on Uechi and – what else can anyone teach.
My point was that reading that post some might point to this and to that as not being Uechi because they don’t teach this element added here by this person when really Uechi began with the three big Kata and conditioning so who is to say anything else is Uechi, or is not Uechi, other than Uechi Kanbun Sensei (if he were living.)
“However, I don't think anything I do or teach today would upset Kanbun, if he were here today.”
Right on, I feel the same way about if he came into my dojo. (We hope right?)
You bet, some would say that is your “opinion” on Uechi and – what else can anyone teach.
My point was that reading that post some might point to this and to that as not being Uechi because they don’t teach this element added here by this person when really Uechi began with the three big Kata and conditioning so who is to say anything else is Uechi, or is not Uechi, other than Uechi Kanbun Sensei (if he were living.)
“However, I don't think anything I do or teach today would upset Kanbun, if he were here today.”
Right on, I feel the same way about if he came into my dojo. (We hope right?)
-
Dana Sheets
- Posts: 2715
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:01 am
Inefficient movement, lack of striking power, lack of partner training, lack of body conditioning, not training to use traditional weapons (toes/shokens, etc), not training intent, lack of continuous fighting, not training vital point targets, lack of sanchin principles...
If you take out all those things you're no longer training what I would call Uechi-Ryu. You're just doing sport karate. Which is fine if that's what you want to do - but you should call it something else.
If you take out all those things you're no longer training what I would call Uechi-Ryu. You're just doing sport karate. Which is fine if that's what you want to do - but you should call it something else.
Did you show compassion today?
if you really think about it tradition is an ideal and not a reality. the idea of preserving. if i am not mistaken in japan Koru Ryu-ha is compared to a living and changing tradition. we cant help but put our opinions into our students heads and their karate.
George i agree on the core and shell idea .
i feel it is almost imposible to keep things the same for any lenght of time. look at Funikoshi's karate and kata and compare it with what is done now in Shotokan. so much change in only what? 70 years? thats one life time. how much have we lost since Kanbun?
Hoshin
~~~~~~
George i agree on the core and shell idea
.i feel it is almost imposible to keep things the same for any lenght of time. look at Funikoshi's karate and kata and compare it with what is done now in Shotokan. so much change in only what? 70 years? thats one life time. how much have we lost since Kanbun?
Hoshin
~~~~~~
Dana said:
"Inefficient movement, lack of striking power, lack of partner training, lack of body conditioning, not training to use traditional weapons (toes/shokens, etc), not training intent, lack of continuous fighting, not training vital point targets, lack of sanchin principles...
If you take out all those things you're no longer training what I would call Uechi-Ryu. You're just doing sport karate. Which is fine if that's what you want to do - but you should call it something else"
***************************************************
I'm with Dana on this, (forgive me for quoting you un-solicited.)
I will refrain from posting my reasons -- they would be offensive to some, but they are meaningful to me, and based on my experience.
NM
"Inefficient movement, lack of striking power, lack of partner training, lack of body conditioning, not training to use traditional weapons (toes/shokens, etc), not training intent, lack of continuous fighting, not training vital point targets, lack of sanchin principles...
If you take out all those things you're no longer training what I would call Uechi-Ryu. You're just doing sport karate. Which is fine if that's what you want to do - but you should call it something else"
***************************************************
I'm with Dana on this, (forgive me for quoting you un-solicited.)
I will refrain from posting my reasons -- they would be offensive to some, but they are meaningful to me, and based on my experience.
NM
-
Stryke
So whats different about the list than any other martial art ? , what makes it Uechi ?"Inefficient movement, lack of striking power, lack of partner training, lack of body conditioning, not training to use traditional weapons (toes/shokens, etc), not training intent, lack of continuous fighting, not training vital point targets, lack of sanchin principles...
You see to me it`s all one tradition thats been broken up and killed by these stylistic labels .
I agree , I think the same about styles essentially , there an ideal and not a reality .if you really think about it tradition is an ideal and not a reality.
your Ryu is what you make it .
Having said all the above I love styles . Even Uechi
-
Dana Sheets
- Posts: 2715
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:01 am
Niel,
Anything I write on these forums is open for quotation and discussion. If I didn't want folks to talk about it, I wouldn't say it. There's a whole bunch of stuff that gets written on these forums that I don't agree with. Heck - some days I don't even agree with myself.
Please post your reasons. If folks are upset, they can respond. If they agree with you, they can also respond.
These forums are not about being one huge mutual admiration society. That would be boring, and pointless. They are here so we can dialogue, hold up a mirror on what we do and figure out if we still want to keep doing what we've been doing.
The socratic method is more than welcome on this forum and if folks get their knickers in a twist then we'll talk about. But if you hold back you may be denying myself and others and opportunity to learn.
Dana
Anything I write on these forums is open for quotation and discussion. If I didn't want folks to talk about it, I wouldn't say it. There's a whole bunch of stuff that gets written on these forums that I don't agree with. Heck - some days I don't even agree with myself.
Please post your reasons. If folks are upset, they can respond. If they agree with you, they can also respond.
These forums are not about being one huge mutual admiration society. That would be boring, and pointless. They are here so we can dialogue, hold up a mirror on what we do and figure out if we still want to keep doing what we've been doing.
The socratic method is more than welcome on this forum and if folks get their knickers in a twist then we'll talk about. But if you hold back you may be denying myself and others and opportunity to learn.
Dana
Did you show compassion today?
-
Dana Sheets
- Posts: 2715
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:01 am
My brother does Matsubayashi Shorin-ryu. They have something like 28 empty handed forms. They have an additional 30+ weapons forms. Patrick McCarthy's syllabus of material is so monstrous I haven't even bothered to learn everything that's in it.thats been broken up and killed
I don't want to know everything about martial arts. I want to learn some solid prinicples and a few good ways to apply them. I don't need every tool in my toolbox. And I'm not going to work to perfect every tool that's ever been invented or discovered.
So "just doing one style" hasn't killed my martial training at all. It's given me a strong focus and a base. Sure I've looked at other things from time to time and I can still pull off some wicked judo throws. And I probably spend 80-90% of my time training my core abilities.
Doesn't mean that other stuff isn't good. Just means that's not where I want to focus my time. That's why I like the tradition of Uechi. It is mostly empty handed, it is mostly grounded in reality, and it had a iron body tradition that I've enjoyed the benefits of training.
I've happy for the folks that want to train the entire curriculum of martial arts. But it is not my focus.
Did you show compassion today?
Ms. Sheets:
Someone, somewhere stated that Uechi study is not broad but deep.
Somehow I am increasingly sensing a sort of "if it feels good, do it" type of training methodology among posters.
I am wondering how long a person has to train before they can truly say they have tried the established teaching and found it to be unfit for them.
I'll come back to this point.
Here's an example.
For many years let's say, one has been doing horse stances by standing in a left stance, and entering the horse to a right.
One has a comfortable and familiar way of doing this, and generally, both feet are flat on the floor.
Then along comes Seisan.
In Seisan there is that left-facing right-elbow strike where the body is angled quite forward, and the weight is forward, and it's VERY different from all the other elbow strikes one has learned.
In addition, one is already in a RIGHT stance!
OK, so now, I can say "this doesn't fit the way I practice Uechi, and I can't see the sense of it, so I'll do it the familiar (to me) way."
Or, I can say "this is a new technique, for a different purpose, and it's very uncomfortable, but I have to learn it this way BEFORE I can "pass a judgment" on it.
That's just an example, I am NOT soliciting assistance on Seisan.
But even within Uechi, I sense an impatience with the study of the techniques in favour of what seems to be "faster" results.
We are warned from the start that this study takes time.
But instead it seems that trainees want "what works for them".
My question is, how can one tell at what level "what works for them" without truly immersing themselves in the training?
How far is far enough to say, "OK, this is "wrong", I'm going to change it or delete it for me, or my students".?
Have you ever come to a similar crossroads where you felt you had assimilated a concept, found it truly unworthy and eliminated it from your teaching?
Once again, I am NOT soliciting personal advice.
NM
Someone, somewhere stated that Uechi study is not broad but deep.
Somehow I am increasingly sensing a sort of "if it feels good, do it" type of training methodology among posters.
I am wondering how long a person has to train before they can truly say they have tried the established teaching and found it to be unfit for them.
I'll come back to this point.
Here's an example.
For many years let's say, one has been doing horse stances by standing in a left stance, and entering the horse to a right.
One has a comfortable and familiar way of doing this, and generally, both feet are flat on the floor.
Then along comes Seisan.
In Seisan there is that left-facing right-elbow strike where the body is angled quite forward, and the weight is forward, and it's VERY different from all the other elbow strikes one has learned.
In addition, one is already in a RIGHT stance!
OK, so now, I can say "this doesn't fit the way I practice Uechi, and I can't see the sense of it, so I'll do it the familiar (to me) way."
Or, I can say "this is a new technique, for a different purpose, and it's very uncomfortable, but I have to learn it this way BEFORE I can "pass a judgment" on it.
That's just an example, I am NOT soliciting assistance on Seisan.
But even within Uechi, I sense an impatience with the study of the techniques in favour of what seems to be "faster" results.
We are warned from the start that this study takes time.
But instead it seems that trainees want "what works for them".
My question is, how can one tell at what level "what works for them" without truly immersing themselves in the training?
How far is far enough to say, "OK, this is "wrong", I'm going to change it or delete it for me, or my students".?
Have you ever come to a similar crossroads where you felt you had assimilated a concept, found it truly unworthy and eliminated it from your teaching?
Once again, I am NOT soliciting personal advice.
NM
