Deconstructing Funakoshi

Bill's forum was the first! All subjects are welcome. Participation by all encouraged.

Moderator: Available

MikeK
Posts: 3664
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2004 9:40 pm

Post by MikeK »

well known Oki 'masters' in trying to discover the 'secrets' of karate;
Ah, I think we're talking about two different groups Jim. I was talking about the first generation of Japanese karateka. I have never seen evidence that the average karateka in Japan from back then cared about self defense or combatives. A lot of good came out of those guys but it's more along the lines of what some would call athletic "smash and bash" karate rather than what we think of as combatives. I've done a little of both versions and there is a difference along with a good deal of overlap.

I disagree that everyone trains for self defense or combatives. I know many people who are excellent fighters that train just for the challenge of the ring. I know others that are excellent martial artists who train as part of a fantasy that they are an Asian warrior or that train to gain a sense of belonging to a special group. The person saying that they are training for SD/combatives may really be trying to boost his self worth, and the person saying that they study to be a better person may really be studying to defend themselves from a real threat but don't want to admit that in public.
I was dreaming of the past...
Stryke

Post by Stryke »

Jim if you cant see that all mechanics are the same , then theres no point arguing , theres only so many ways to move the human body , the thousands of methods you see are purely ornamentation .

there is depth in the kata , and a terrible lack of knowledge .

and folks can reverse engineer . Purely because of the limitations of anatomy , and the overlap of mechanics . All you have to do is reintroduce the attacker and the act and expirement .

If you dont agree thats your perogative .
User avatar
JimHawkins
Posts: 2101
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 12:21 am
Location: NYC

Post by JimHawkins »

Stryke wrote: Jim if you cant see that all mechanics are the same , then theres no point arguing , theres only so many ways to move the human body , the thousands of methods you see are purely ornamentation .
Arguing? Oh I thought these forums were for discussion.

Tai Chi and WCK are prime examples of two systems that both have push hands type drills and both work inside, both have two legs and two arms, etc. Yet anyone who has actual experience in both can tell you they use completely different mechanical tools to reach different objectives..

Ask Jorvik..

This is because the concepts are different and are therefore expressed as different mechanics.. Some systems simply do not do what others do because they have different strategies.

To say all 'tricks' are the same because the same animal is performing them is a gross over simplification, IMO.
Shaolin
M Y V T K F
"Receive what comes, stay with what goes, upon loss of contact attack the line" – The Kuen Kuit
Stryke

Post by Stryke »

Your absolutely right if your taking a narrow veiw Jim

Argue debate call it what you want .

I wont change your mind nor you mine .

different styles emphasise different mechanics , but all mechanics are there if you get into it .

I consider martial arts a study of movement and mechanics and dont box myself in .

as for mechanical tools , maybe you mean mechanical principles , because we only have the tools (insert supreme being of choice or darwin or something) we are born with , unless where talking weapons .

it`s all just leverage and summation of joint forces , you can only generate movement according to your anatomy , theres only so many ways the body moves period .

but hey I`ll agree to disagree , I think we`ve been here before .

maybe I see too much in many arts , I see stylisation as an overcomplication much of the time , the classical mess perhaps .

much better to learn the lesson than be slave to the drilling , finger moon etc ... :oops:
User avatar
JimHawkins
Posts: 2101
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 12:21 am
Location: NYC

Post by JimHawkins »

I thought we all were supposed to learn from disagreement, to wit:

I agree that all normal humans will each have the same mechanical tool set, however, like any General will each use men, we can use this mechanical set in totally different ways - in fact in an INFINITE variety of ways. Each one using a particular strategy made up of sub strategies that are well understood and all fit together as a whole. In MAs that is called a system - and drives all of what and how one trains and views his strategic objective. How many objectives or strategies may one embrace for any given situation...? It's important to understand that not all strategies and methods compliment each other and some in fact contradict. This is what Bruce meant by understanding the common thread that must link all things.

The final answer must be smaller not larger, one sound strategy is enough and more realistic than trying to adopt many or all strategies, which is not possible - I'm sure that isn't what you meant, right?? How many options are too many? Science has shown less is more in combat.

Finally, it is a common strategic thread that allows us to simplify all things and join all things together, mechanics and mind and that allows for a daily reduction and focus.. In the end a style is a strategy and while one may embrace and understand mechanics one cannot embrace all strategies.
Shaolin
M Y V T K F
"Receive what comes, stay with what goes, upon loss of contact attack the line" – The Kuen Kuit
Stryke

Post by Stryke »

I get you Jim , to me it`s two seperate discussions strategy and mechanics .

Mechanics is limited to anatomy and the basic machines , leverage fulcrums pulleys etc .

strategy is imagination , it can be infinite , although this too I prefer to break into positions , but thats a personal idiosyncracy and that to me is the overlap .

movement is limted(by our human form) , exspression is not , however if you understand the movement and mechanics the strategy becomes self evident on examination .

to say some strategys dont fit each other I hold to be self evident , and an exercise in jargon , Its akin to me as saying an arm bar doesnt work if I`m using my fists for punching instead of seizing , one can interchange strategys the same as one interchanges tricks/techniques ...

while you beleive a set strategy gives simplification (and to an extent I agree) I beleive and understanding of structure and movement Is the ultimate goal and the ultimate simplification , for when you move with such naturalness and unity everything will be inherently powerfull .

I can discard a strategy and/or replace it , and in fact all strategys have weaknesses , what remains absolute is the effeceincy and adaptability of my natural movement .

strategy gives simplification only if in itself it is setting a limitation .

to be defined as a strategy there must be boundarys .

what is more simple than one physical being taking any oppurtunity , to let the self do what is natural , and to not impose a method , let the summation of ones experience (truly the only thng we have) make the decision .

to conform to an ideal is battling the self , dont become just be

this is the stuff I feel bruce was talking about , and I must admit I`m a beleiver .

I`ve yet to be confused with options .
User avatar
JimHawkins
Posts: 2101
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 12:21 am
Location: NYC

Post by JimHawkins »

Stryke wrote: I can discard a strategy and/or replace it , and in fact all strategys have weaknesses , what remains absolute is the effeceincy and adaptability of my natural movement .

strategy gives simplification only if in itself it is setting a limitation .
The Jeet Kune Do Method of applying specific principles and concepts could and did apply to many Martial Arts movement systems. Therefore, JKD is not Wing Chun, Kali, Kickboxing, or a combination of various Martial Arts systems, but can be found in part or applied to these systems and many others. Because concepts and principles are universal, they cannot be confined to, or contained in, only one method.
The important part is here:

"But can be found in part or applied to these systems and many others"

There are two big keys in JKD according to Bruce's writings.

First is the common thread that conceptually links all things together, things that at first glance may seem different. The idea is not to just use some of this and some of that, or worse as much as we can, but rather to select things for a reason and to do it in a systematic way to ensure that the sum of the parts is greater than the whole, in other words synergy and focused purpose are the objectives.

Using universal concepts one may effectively assimilate and synthesize a complete whole into one's mental and physical paradigm. Effective mental expression via recognition must follow some logical process, meaning that the parts must "FIT" both each other, the individual and the goal - all parts assist each other in order for natural expression. It is a disjointed amalgamation of random parts and peices, thrown together that can inhibit expression and freedom; This becomes the "mess."

Concepts that join parts into a logical whole is what humans need to mentally organize and freely express "ideas" and "solutions" this becomes possible because there is a paradigm at work. This is much the same as language, grammar and vocabulary. These "rules" are not limiting they are what allow for expression, without which one could only have a hodge podge of "creative words" from different languages that make no sense and cannot be used to express anything effectively because there is no order or reference to define any cumulative meaning. In other words chaos, quantity and disconnectedness does not equate to freedom; It equates to expressive congestion.

Second is the "Daily Reduction"

Another key in JKD is to reduce and distill the whole until you have only what is needed. IMO this is what a good style does - it does not limit rather it guides the creating individual - us. Like carving a large block of granite into a work of art one must indeed have a tangible idea in mind to know what to remove and what not to remove. Random removal of bits and pieces of the block results in no distinguishable work, just random shapes that mean nothing.

Finally it is these unifying concepts that allow for the adding and for the subtracting. More is not "more," LESS is more and whatever one is left with can only maximize its effectiveness if it can function as a true whole. Later these same concepts are used to streamline the option set, something we know today is very important. This paradigm gives the brain and body freedom to apply the art "conceptually" from anywhere across a range of applications and to finally distill it down into the simplest form of expressing the concept set - that's JKD - and what I personally belive in, and how I seek to "innovate" and "simplify."
Lau Tsu wrote:
Woe to him who wilfully innovates while ignorant
of the constant .
Shaolin
M Y V T K F
"Receive what comes, stay with what goes, upon loss of contact attack the line" – The Kuen Kuit
MikeK
Posts: 3664
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2004 9:40 pm

Post by MikeK »

Another key in JKD is to reduce and distill the whole until you have only what is needed.
Everytime I get something down to just what is needed I see another set of needs that are not addressed by what I'm doing.
I was dreaming of the past...
User avatar
JimHawkins
Posts: 2101
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 12:21 am
Location: NYC

Post by JimHawkins »

MikeK wrote:
Another key in JKD is to reduce and distill the whole until you have only what is needed.
Everytime I get something down to just what is needed I see another set of needs that are not addressed by what I'm doing.
Interesting got an example?

The whole in theory covers all combative need types. If you see needs that are not covered then add skills there. Break down the whole into ranges or combative "venues" and fill in the gaps as you wish.. We only have so much time to train so this is another reason to "reduce" at each range or combat venue. MA is a *huge* area of study and the key IMO is not to add more than is needed for any particular skill subset.
Shaolin
M Y V T K F
"Receive what comes, stay with what goes, upon loss of contact attack the line" – The Kuen Kuit
Stryke

Post by Stryke »

Mikes argument sums up my point , maybe on one level where agreeing Jim

where you say add , I say understand and extend the principle of motion onto another range .

It may seem a new technique , but IMHO if understod it`s just another variation of the same principle .

at this point of time Ive broken all empty hand ranges down to arguably six positions .

applications are the five ancient machines .

and maximum strentgh and force is the harmonies and structural alignment .

I think thats fairly simple for a complicated thing such as human movement .
MikeK
Posts: 3664
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2004 9:40 pm

Post by MikeK »

Interesting got an example?
Jim, the force continuum is one of the guiding forces behind my additional needs. Before that I used to think I could work toward a really small set of techniques. But even with just empty hand I find I need to keep more and add more details just to cover the full FC.

I'm not big on breaking things down into ranges as to me they are too brief and too transitory, but I instead work towards a outcome. Like Marcus I look for commonalities in things which makes new(?) material easier to learn, remember and use.
I was dreaming of the past...
Post Reply

Return to “Bill Glasheen's Dojo Roundtable”