shotokan and shuai chiao

[SevenStar]

http://www.blackbeltmag.com/archives/blackbelt/1999/jun99/thr.html

[stimulant]

now someone please correct me if im wrong....

but didnt Funakoshi take out all of the throws and locks to make it easy to learn? i'm sure he said in he created shotokan for children?

no offence to anyone ment.

[SevenStar]

even if that's true, taking them out of the training doesn't mean they're not in the kata...

[scotty1]

"Depending upon the strength and skill of the opponent, it is not always necessary to use powerful techniques like hitting, thrusting and kicking; but adjusting to the situation, softer techniques such as throwing may be used, and in this versatility there is an inexpressible savor."

Does he mean that you *can* if you want to, throw an opponent softly? Surely the same could be said of striking?

Or does he mean grappling type techniques that don't rely on impact?

[norther practitioner]

grappling type techniques that don't rely on impact

I think thats pretty much what he was saying.

[scotty1]

It's just that he specifically equates throws with being softer techniques, as opposed to striking.

When, as the guy in the article says, there's less give with a throw than with a strike.

Just a bit of a strangely worded statement that's all.

[SevenStar]

Originally posted by scotty1
"Depending upon the strength and skill of the opponent, it is not always necessary to use powerful techniques like hitting, thrusting and kicking; but adjusting to the situation, softer techniques such as throwing may be used, and in this versatility there is an inexpressible savor."

Does he mean that you *can* if you want to, throw an opponent softly? Surely the same could be said of striking?

Or does he mean grappling type techniques that don't rely on impact?

from a judo perspective, fighting is based on the principle of maximum efficiency with minimal effort. If I can throw you with normal o goshi (hip throw), there's really no need to throw you with a harai goshi (sweeping hip) which may take more effort on my part.

In hte same sense, why kick you, which may stop your forward motion, but I still have to keep hitting you until you fall, when I can just use your momentim and throw you...

[scotty1]

So you think when he refers to a technique as 'soft' he's referring to the amount of effort needed to pull it off?

Because the way it reads he's saying strikes are more powerful than throws.

"it is not always necessary to use powerful techniques like hitting, thrusting and kicking; but adjusting to the situation, softer techniques such as throwing may be used"

maybe its just the way I'm reading it. Anyway, carry on...:)

[apoweyn]

Or the way it's translated.

[scotty1]

Very good point.

But it does read like that, right?

[apoweyn]

Yeah, absolutely.

But I've noticed that it's notoriously difficult to translates concepts like yielding and "softness." As far as I can figure, those ideas have a very different connotation in Asian thought than in Western. Soft, gentle, yielding, etc. tend to sound ineffectual to us. But I don't think they have that stigma to the Asian ear.

But what do I know? :)

[rogue]

but didnt Funakoshi take out all of the throws and locks to make it easy to learn? i'm sure he said in he created shotokan for children? Did Funakoshi create or even do "Shotokan"?


even if that's true, taking them out of the training doesn't mean they're not in the kata... They were never really taken out of the training. Funakoshi has throws in his books Kempo Karate, Karate-Jutsu where he points out the throw in bassai which resembles a form of double leg, and as pointed out in the article Karate-Do Kyohan. According to a Shotokan guy that I met karateka from the lineage that Muzila belongs to still have the pressure points, thows, breaks, locks and dirty tricks that are in the Okinawan styles. What we think of as shotokan is different from the karate of Funakoshi.


Or does he mean grappling type techniques that don't rely on impact? I think he means controlled grappling and throwing. Something that if done a certain way lets an untrained person roll out of it, but the same technique can be used to dump the guy on his head if need be. I'm not doing shotokan but it sounds like the techniques that I've just started learning.

[Mr Punch]

"Out of respect to his contemporary, Jigoro Kano, the founder of judo, Funakoshi was courteous to keep his throwing techniques limited to those done off of striking attacks, rather than from a pure grappling standpoint," Following on from what Ap and Scotty are on about the above statement doesn't quite ring true to me. I don't know about them in any detail but it rather seems like maybe Funakoshi's deference was a result of Kano undisputably being a lot more accomplished in 'soft' grappling, rather than having to set up with a 'harder' and maybe less efficent strike...

And you have a point Ap: softness does not necessarily mean bad in other languages. In Japanese the word used in these situations is often 'yawarakai' which means 'soft', but also 'supple', 'flexible' or 'yielding', as well as 'velvety' or 'fluffy' in some contexts.

But two points:

1) To keep to the example of yawarakai, to the Japanese people there is no problem understanding that in the judo context yawarakai would mean soft, or in some MA contexts maybe flexible, but that it isn't going to mean velvety or fluffy. This is a problem with our translation, but more to the point that in Japanese even more so than English sometimes, context is often everything.

2) People often describe aiki, shiau chiao, judo, jj etc as 'soft' when they don't understand what is happening...! When they land on their heads/get choked etc (when they've been 'mugged by the straitjacket') they don't know how they got there, but there is no yielding to escape... but suddenly they don't feel as soft anymore!

Maybe it was just that Funakoshi really didn't understand the power of the throws he was learning, which is why he left them in kata as mechanical applications to supposedly high level practitioners despite saying they were a basic component of making your own game easier and less effort.

Just a thought or two. Like I said, not my subject really.

[scotty1]

I think everyone would be familiar with the whole taiji problem of translating 'soft.'

[SevenStar]

Originally posted by rogue
What we think of as shotokan is different from the karate of Funakoshi.


agreed.

[SiuHung]

Clearly in those pictures, the Shuai Chiao practitioner has the more powerful and dangerous throw. Why? Because of the use of the leg, chopping at the opponent's root.
Shotokan is Funakoshi's attempt at removing all the "real dangerouse" stuff from Okinawan fighting systems...Looks like he accomplished that goal.
These two arts come from completely different approaches. Drawing parallels between them is a stretch.
Mike

[rogue]

And Honey Nut Cheerios are superior to plain old Cheerios because HNC has honey!

Any opinions on why Hung Gar hasn't won a UFC?:confused:

[SevenStar]

Originally posted by SiuHung
Clearly in those pictures, the Shuai Chiao practitioner has the more powerful and dangerous throw. Why? Because of the use of the leg, chopping at the opponent's root.
Shotokan is Funakoshi's attempt at removing all the "real dangerouse" stuff from Okinawan fighting systems...Looks like he accomplished that goal.
These two arts come from completely different approaches. Drawing parallels between them is a stretch.
Mike

you can't judge whether or not EVERYTHING dangerous was taken out because of one pic. Drawing parallels is probably less of a stretch than you'd think. And what of judo? The "dangerous stuff" was removed from that as well, but I guarantee you they'll give you a run for your money.

[SiuHung]

Originally posted by rogue
And Honey Nut Cheerios are superior to plain old Cheerios because HNC has honey!

Any opinions on why Hung Gar hasn't won a UFC?:confused:

Probably because they don't have the benefit of your guidance?
Mike

[KC Elbows]

From my understanding, softness as it's being used here isn't in defining the tech as superior or inferior, or stronger or weaker. It is referring to the efficiency of the technique and the ideally least strenuous/damaging way to achieve it FOR THE ATTACKER. It is not a referrence to the damage caused, imo.

The point being, no matter what, strikes should involve jarring impact of one form or another(you are hitting something), and no matter what, throws should approach effortlessness, irrespective of what heinous damage is being done. I wouldn't say this is universally true: I think some strikes to soft areas are not too bad, and some throws are high risk to the thrower, but you get the idea.

[SiuHung]

Originally posted by SevenStar


you can't judge whether or not EVERYTHING dangerous was taken out because of one pic. Drawing parallels is probably less of a stretch than you'd think. And what of judo? The "dangerous stuff" was removed from that as well, but I guarantee you they'll give you a run for your money.

Oh, you're right about not judging everything by pictures...but in this case I'll stand by my opinion. As for Shotokan and Judo, it's easy to inject the more finite elements of these arts back into them.
Mike

[Kristoffer]

good link

[rogue]

Maybe it was just that Funakoshi really didn't understand the power of the throws he was learning, I don't know Mat. I've heard that Kano learned one of Judo's more popular throws from Funakoshi, which I could remember which one. We're also talking about throws in what is primarily a striking art, so the idea of throws being "soft" techniques may mean something a little different than they do in Judo.

On a side note: How can Shuai Chiao be practiced for competition if it hasn't also removed most of it's dangerous techniques? :confused:

[SevenStar]

you learn both the safe version of the throw and the black hands version. In judo, you will only learn the safe version. That doesn't mean you can't figure out dangerous variations of the throw though...

[SevenStar]

ttt

[blooming lotus]

Originally posted by scotty1
"Depending upon the strength and skill of the opponent, it is not always necessary to use powerful techniques like hitting, thrusting and kicking; but adjusting to the situation, softer techniques such as throwing may be used, and in this versatility there is an inexpressible savor."

Does he mean that you *can* if you want to, throw an opponent softly? Surely the same could be said of striking?

Or does he mean grappling type techniques that don't rely on impact?

I'm not even gonna try to interpret that .....I don't know what HE means, but for myself, in a fight, or defence situation, there is nearly never real reason to throw a strikeaimed for impact...normally, and especially in a dark ally, a good throw or takedown will be enough...vs a strike, it's just a safer option....I don't know about you, but I don't really WANNA hurt anyone..not even to prove I'm big and tuff and can look after myself so dont f*ck with me buddy....remember, as little force is as neccessary..;)

[scotty1]

BL, I'm not being rude, but how many times have you taken down or thrown an attacker in a dark alley without striking?

[stimulant]

although once good at throws (askill I've sadly let slip), I'd rather strike..... seen too many people throw only to end up in a grapple.

[blooming lotus]

Originally posted by scotty1
BL, I'm not being rude, but how many times have you taken down or thrown an attacker in a dark alley without striking?

none..that I remember off hand, I'm pretty likeable, and can normally defuse the situation before it gets to that...but I am a chick and I get approached often..I've also been stalked for days weeks and months at a tme, and I swear, It's the first thing I plan for...if I strike you, I'm going to hurt you...loving my aikdo/ninjitsu for this very reason ;)

[rogue]

loving my aikdo/ninjitsu for this very reason
Isn't it aikido and ninjutsu?

[scotty1]

"for myself, in a fight, or defence situation, there is nearly never real reason to throw a strikeaimed for impact"

um, what about defending yourself effectively?

"...normally, and especially in a dark ally, a good throw or takedown will be enough..."

But you've never done it, so you're guessing.

Setting up throws with strikes is a good idea.

Being humane with an attacker because you don't really want to hurt them (even though they are attacking you:confused: ) and attempting to move straight into a throw or takedown, esp. with a weight/strength disadvantage, is not such a good idea.

How often do you pull that off in sparring?