|
Post by sbwright on Feb 13, 2006 14:49:32 GMT 8
Some of these knife hands are apparently intended to be blocks others blocks and strikes ie blocking at one angle, attacking at another.
The problem when looking back at these forms is that what may be true for one form, say Bassai may not necessarily hold for the pyong ahns.
Bassai is an old form with possible links to Hung Gar, White Crane or Lohanquan Kung Fu.
The Pyong Ahns are a modern rendition of a much older form(s) the intention behind them(which we will never know) is in all likelihood different from other forms.
It is said that they were modified for introduction into the Okinawan school system(not necessarily dumbed down, but changed to facilitate large scale teaching).
Are the numerous blocks there for repetition or are they indicative of different techniques?
|
|
|
Post by supergroup7 on Feb 14, 2006 4:41:24 GMT 8
"Pyung Ahn Cho Dan is similar to Chon-ji."
Colin? Are we going to look at all the variations of these kata in all the styles?
I believe that Chon-Ji is Tae Kwon do Poomse/kata. Would you please put a little link to lead me to an online version of it so that I can "see" what you are explaining?
I was going to introduce the differences that I noticed between the Kyokushin version of Pinan sono Ichi (with online video) and the Pyung-An Cho Dan kata, but then I felt that this would complicate things, and really go off topic.
Are we mainly looking at how Japanese Shotokan, Korean Tang Soo Do, and then Tae Kwon Do have differences, and similarities to see the evolution?
|
|
|
Post by supergroup7 on Feb 14, 2006 4:51:58 GMT 8
"Are the numerous blocks there for repetition or are they indicative of different techniques?"
I think that the answer to your question is "BOTH".
Let me expound as to why I feel this way:
I believe that the kata were created for educational purposes to help develope certain actions, strengths, and abilities. When you want to teach someone something, you need to repeat the information often, in different ways to help them reach understanding.
When you look at this kata: you can see 13 "blocks" (Let's call them blocks just for this moment.), and about 7 strikes. This is almost a 2 to 1 ratio. Would this be similar to what would be needed in an actual encounter if you are fighting on the defensive?
Now.. some people have said that there is no actual "block" in a kata. The blocks should be looked at as a striking attack because one is moving forwards into their opponent as they execute the movement. Therefore 100% of the kata is offensive driven.
However, you can also see the "block" as an anticipatory move.. you move forwards into the attack while it's still gearing up, and hasn't come to fruition yet. This would be the best time to stop the attack. Therefore the block would become both a block, and an attack.
Some people have seen that the blocks need not be blocks at all, but actually they are a reaction to being grabbed by the opponent. It becomes a breaking-free movement before you attack the opponent.
|
|
|
Post by supergroup7 on Feb 14, 2006 4:58:22 GMT 8
" that angles of the back stance is less important than the front stance as I believe the back stance allows you to move left and right, and transitions between stances that require more speed."
I think that it all depends what you want to do with your legs, and feet as to whether the angles of the backstance are set one way or another. I have found that the "P" Backstance allows quite alot of freedom of movement back and forth even though you have most of your weight on your back leg. The "H" backstance has a stability to it. I feel "Locked" in place when I do the Shotokan back stance properly. It feels like a tank could come at me from the front, and I could withhold it.
The leg tension in "P" is more equal, but in the "H" backstance it is definately an outer pressure pushing the knees away from each other.
|
|
|
Post by Colin Wee on Feb 14, 2006 13:26:53 GMT 8
The problem when looking back at these forms is that what may be true for one form, say Bassai may not necessarily hold for the pyong ahns. IMOM this is true for forms even within the Chang Hon set. If you show a lower block in one form, you shouldn't need to show the same lower block in another. If you are, then that next block has to show or teach something different. In deference to Dr Clayton's book 'Shotokan's Secrets' the forms were apparently used to prepare the practitioner to learn Naifuanchi and Bassai. Colin? Are we going to look at all the variations of these kata in all the styles? If you are up to it and if it brings value to the discussion, sure. I personally made that post for my board discussing Chang Hon patterns; looking back to source information may be enlightening. I think it would be a really interesting exercise. Perhaps the immediate priority would be to take the 'personal snapshot' of the forms. The subsequent priority (no less important) would be to present them for accessiblity (comparing, contrasting, etc).
|
|
|
Post by Colin Wee on Feb 14, 2006 13:38:28 GMT 8
It feels like a tank could come at me from the front, and I could withhold it. I subscribe to a slightly different viewpoint: If you're being blitzed, I'd rather be in a forward stance, huddling my face down so as to not be knocked out. But yes, a back stance does provide a feeling of some stability. Moving back and forward is easily done in any stance. I'm talking about the Shotokan need to propel yourself forward to generate linear acceleration. This cannot be done in a back stance. It has to be done in a front stance or variant of the front stance. Colin
|
|
|
Post by supergroup7 on Feb 14, 2006 22:30:47 GMT 8
>Colin? Are we going to look at all the variations of these kata in all the styles?
"If you are up to it and if it brings value to the discussion, sure."
I think that it would be interesting to look at the Kyokushin version of this particular kata because it contains a mixture of Shotokan (Japanese), Kempo (Chinese), Kempo (Korean), and Goju (Okinawan) influences.
|
|
|
Post by supergroup7 on Feb 14, 2006 22:41:28 GMT 8
"I'm talking about the Shotokan need to propel yourself forward to generate linear acceleration. This cannot be done in a back stance." by Colin.
I've seen my Sempai, and Sensei execute quick surges forwards to get that linear acceleration in the back stance position. They've also done that type of surging in all the other stances.
Speaking from lack of any knowledge, I'm guessing that the idea is to allow your opponent's forward momentum of their attack to crash into you as you set yourself into a strong backstance position, and your attack sneaks into their vulnerablility of commitment. I've noticed that there is always a deflecting movement associated with the backstance position, and then a solid strike afterwards. Such as the last 4 moves of this kata... you turn, deflect, then swiftly move forwards, and strike solidly in a backstance position. Why are we not changing our attack into a front stance at that point to take advantage of our forwards momentum as we do in other kata? Why are the last 4 movements all in backstance? My hypothesis is that we are being crowded in by our opponents at that point, and that we are creating space for techniques by using backstance. I'm always open to correction.
|
|
|
Post by Colin Wee on Feb 22, 2006 12:38:29 GMT 8
Added in a link to my original post that points to forms application from karatekorner.com.
|
|
|
Post by supergroup7 on Feb 24, 2006 1:11:42 GMT 8
Here... www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFV6fhHpEcsThis is a wonderful performance of the Kyokushin "Pinan Sono Ichi"... same kata as Heian Shodan, and Pyung Ahn Chodan. See the similarities in the performance? It's like right in the middle between Shotokan, and Tang Soo Do.
|
|
|
Post by supergroup7 on Feb 24, 2006 1:29:31 GMT 8
Thank you for that karatekorner link at the beginning of this thread, Colin. I only had enough time to skim through it. One of the applications that MasterDave had offered for the opening moves of Pyung Ahn Cho Dan rang a little bell in my head
yet we turn backwards and around to defend against an attacker who is to the right of us....if this were the case at hand all we would have to do is move our right foot over and defend...the turn is NOT to defend against another attacker but to finnish the attacker at hand. now comes the grappling within the Tang Soo Do hyung that DOES EXSIST! in reality you are turning taking your attacker with you... turning counter clockwise and finnishing him off with the final movement of the turn.
I have tried in the past to apply this with a partner. I found that I didn't have the strength to pull my attacker with me as I pulled my right leg back. I used as much hip as I could but since my balance was forwards after the right armed "Punch" (Movement #2) It was not possible to pull me, and my opponent with me as I turned 180 degrees to face the other direction, especially since my opponent was unbalanced away from me from my previous movements.
Has anyone tried this application, and made it stick? How much do you have to figit with the stance/technique to get it to happen?
|
|
|
Post by Colin Wee on Feb 24, 2006 9:19:48 GMT 8
In terms of my aiki understanding, the reason why you're not affecting the opponent in this circumstance is because you are too far away from him. In terms of my hard style understanding, the turn is a poor way to finish off the opponent, unless you're breaking his neck or arm or shoulder in the process. This is not easy to do in the dojo, so you may not get the actual results you wanted! Colin
|
|
|
Post by supergroup7 on Mar 1, 2006 21:41:35 GMT 8
www.superkarate.ru/video/kata/07.avi
This is a wonderful performance of the Kyokushin "Pinan Sono Ichi"... same kata as Heian Shodan, and Pyung Ahn Chodan.
See the similarities in the performance? It's like right in the middle between Shotokan, and Tang Soo Do.Just to expound more... The Kyokushin performance has the Shotokan "quickly move into position with the technique, and pause/focus before moving again." rather than the Tang Soo Do "flowing into each movement." The Kyokushin artist does direct stepping rather than the C stepping found in Shotokan/ Tang Soo Do. This affects the way that he moves forward.. there seems to be almost an added throwing of weight forwards to the attack action. The Kyokushin artist keeps the same level throughout the kata similar to Shotokan. In movement #4, the hammerfist of the Kyokushin practionner comes around and hits temple high from the side which is more similar to the Tang Soo Do attack which is also a hammerfist temple high (However, the Tang Soo Do comes from inside rather than outside.) Shotokanists will do a downwards (oroshi) hammerfist here. The hip rotation during blocks in Kyokushin is the same as Shotokan. This hints to me that there may be a similar application of the technique. The last four knife hands in backstance in Kyokushin are in a similar to the Tang Soo Do. There is a definate circular movement of the arms in both of these arts, and the feet/knees are placed differently than the Shotokan stylist. The placement of the legs, and feet give us a clue as to where the performer expects the most resistance, and power delivery. I'm guessing here.. but I would say that the Shotokanist is applying a sudden direct attack on a close opponent at this part of the kata. While the Kyokushin, and Tang Soo Doist are using deflection, grabbing, and throwing the opponent.
|
|
|
Post by supergroup7 on Mar 1, 2006 21:55:45 GMT 8
In terms of my aiki understanding, the reason why you're not affecting the opponent in this circumstance is because you are too far away from him.
O.K.. just for talking sake.. ( I LOVE to talk.. just ask my poor Sensei.)
The first opening moves of this kata. You turn to the left, and down block.. (Well.. let's say that your opponent is even closer than that.. and you manage to do a hammerfist groin/inside the thigh strike, and get a good grab of pant material.)
Then you step forwards into your opponent, and snuggle up close with your right foot forwards... and you want to throw this opponent.
Would you not:
Just move your back left foot over, spin in place, and throw the opponent over your right shoulder?
But what was offered on the karatekorner forum :
now comes the grappling within the Tang Soo Do hyung that DOES EXSIST! in reality you are turning taking your attacker with you... turning counter clockwise and finnishing him off with the final movement of the turn.
So.. back to talking. I'm all snuggled close to my opponent, and I've got a good hold of him with my right arm around his torso, and my left hand on his right pant leg. According to the above application, I retract my right leg bringing it back to my support foot, the weight of my body, and my opponents all on my supporting left leg as I stretch out my right leg behind me. Then, I spin counter clockwise??? Can't be.
In the kata I spin clockwise 180 degrees at that point, I'd be throwing my opponent off of my left shoulder.. IF I could successfully do it.
What am I missing here?
|
|
|
Post by Colin Wee on Mar 1, 2006 21:57:02 GMT 8
That's interesting. I was taught by my first style to step straight, rather than a 'C' which I do now because of my TKD training. The straight step maybe was due to the predominance of leg strikes we used. In Kyokushin it seems that maybe this might work better given the nature of the hand strikes? Anyway the "C' step definitely creates more speed for long range hand strikes. Colin
|
|