|
Post by searcher2 on Sept 16, 2005 13:44:36 GMT
Arakaki's book is fanciful nonsense (IMHO). Bill Burgar's book is nice. Everyone should have one. That doesn't mean that everything in it is gospel. For instance, there are many places where Bill states "This is the only technique in the kata that deals with a "<insert attack type here>". I will show you how many of the moves in the kata can deal with said attack type. I also find those statements strange when the same move is shown to do something else the next time it is repeated. You don't need to make up your own kata, you just need to have personal workable applications to the moves you already know. Take a look at the recent efforts of people who have made up their own kata. They tend to end up as either exotic ballets or as scruffy simplistic things. There are very few people who have enough knowledge and enough depth to their training to concost the kata with everything that the old kata have in them - and those people who have the knowledge, for the most part, would not want to make up their own kata.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Precision on Sept 16, 2005 16:00:45 GMT
You don't need to make up your own kata, you just need to have personal workable applications to the moves you already know. Take a look at the recent efforts of people who have made up their own kata. They tend to end up as either exotic ballets or as scruffy simplistic things. Does it really matter what it looks like to anyone else though? It's your own personal kata, you know what it's doing. I keep being told that one of the problems of knowing lots of techniques is that when the shit hits the fan you tend to go "oh shit which should I use?". Pick your favourites for the common types of attacks or situations, work them into your own personal kata, change it as your strategy, technique and knowledge of what works improves.
|
|
|
Post by random on Sept 16, 2005 16:20:41 GMT
Isn’t this a bit like re-inventing the wheel but without the spokes?
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Precision on Sept 16, 2005 16:42:58 GMT
Isn’t this a bit like re-inventing the wheel but without the spokes? Yeah, but that's what engineers do all the time. It's like a magnesium/carbon fibre composite wheel. Stronger, lighter and built for the purpose. Put all your best stuff in it, practice the kata and you've practiced all your favourite techniques against the most common forms of attack in one place, you don't need to think about it or perform bunkai on it because you know what it's for and you still have the support of all of the other techniques and kata you know.
|
|
|
Post by kenshiro on Sept 16, 2005 22:03:22 GMT
I haven't read Bill Burgar's book but it sounds interesting. I want to read it someday. Regarding Arakaki's book, yeah, I heard many people failed to understand it. I could see some hints in understanding the essence of Karate but actually it doesn't fully detail them. So even if you find 99% crap but 1% useful, it would be fine. It is a book like that, I think.
For example, Arakaki introduced a technique called "tochiho", which is for closing in to the opponent instantly without being noticed. Briefly, it can be done by utilising the gravity instead of the power given by kicking the ground, and he points that the technique is hidden in Naifanchi. I am sure even the word "tochiho" is unfamiliar to the most of Japanese karateka. How the hell can you find it without being indicated? To avoid misunderstanding, it is never occult, the technique can be seen for example in the top class boxing.
In order to allow such a technique to work, your body/mind need developing under your control. IMO, one of the biggest purpose of practicing kata is to develop such body/mind control, which might be regarded as essence of Karate. This reminds me of a statement of Shito-ryu's soke (heritor). "You cannot change any kata by yourself. Kata must be performed and taught exactly as they are, but the number of kata applications is infinite."
|
|
|
Post by dickclark on Oct 6, 2005 13:14:23 GMT
I think we approach kata in the wrong way. I know of no dojo where any time is really spent in working the applications. We go over the application, but do not study how they really work. If we spent one class per week, say an hour of that class, to try and work the applications, we would have a very different view of them. Rather than start from a blank sheet of paper, we should see how and what works in what we have.
|
|
|
Post by AngelaG on Oct 6, 2005 20:26:37 GMT
Hiya Dick!
|
|
|
Post by dickclark on Oct 7, 2005 13:03:43 GMT
hiya Angela
|
|