Hiromasa Setamatsu

[blackcat]

We have so many defenses against straight line attacks that to add not much 2-3 more drills just to give an idea of other attacks would make the syllabus really big?

Ps.I was always wonder why we don’t have hook punches as kihons ,just like Kette jun tsuki /Kette gyaku tsuki,nagashi tsuki, or even attacks and defenses with mawashi geri gedan (with the shin)in syllabus just like Kyokushin for example

[/quote]

Acer

I would say there is nothing wrong with adding the drills you mention. Personally, I wouldn't make it the core of our training but no harm in trying it from time to time. There are techniques in the existing Wadokai syllabus for responding to mawashizuki which is the closest example to a swing punch you will see in traditional karate. If you want to take it a little further then have a look at Yanagawa's ideas where he deals more with boxing type punching on his early films.

In relation to hook punches in training basics, these do exist - have a look at Suzuki Tatsuo's basic syllabus and some of his later adaptions or watch Sakagami sensei's using his 'furikenzuki' technique. Many senior instructors have expressed admiration for boxing technique and of course the hook is a staple of that approach.

Wrt mawashigeri training, there are lots of ways to use that technique - inside or outside of the thigh are just two examples (I remember seeing a competitor passing out after he was kicked on the outside of the thigh). Maybe your instructor hasn't shown you the different possibilities with it. Swinging it kyokushinkai style isn't the Wado approach but the target area is more than acceptable practice.

None of this takes us away from the need to train using the fundamental principles. The karate world - and that of Wado in particular - is showered with the results of those who have drifted from this approach and it is clearly apparent in their technical ability - mores the pity for their students.

But returning to the subject, I posted the Setamatsu link as I thought that he demonstrates, at a ripe old age, some of those basic principles we've discussed here. If we ignore these basic principles then progress in training Wadoryu karate is all but impossible in my view.

One question for you though - why are you so concerned with training defence drills?

Ben

[Tim49]

Acer,
I take your point about the syllabus. But the syllabus is essentially a cut down framework designed to be manageable and to supply a certain level of convenience for those who work with and around it, it is not the Bible, the Koran or the Torah. As practical people we take a practical approach not a fundamentalist one.

I am always full of admiration for the designers of the contemporary Wado syllabi, it shows that if they are from a sound pedigree their ingenuity and depth of knowledge shines through their syllabus. But it’s not the be-all and end-all, it supplies a set of building blocks and acts as a vehicle for development; it’s the map not the territory.

As Oneya pointed out I also see dealing with circular attacks in Tanto Dori and some Idori.

Leg attacks happen in our Dojo. Leg attacks like sunegeri and sukuto fumikomi are part of many Wado syllabi, defences against low line kicks occur in Kihon Gumite. As far back as 1977 I remember Sakagami Sensei teaching defences against kicks to the thigh. I remember working with Suzuki Sensei circa 1982 on attacks to the inside of the supporting knee when an opponent is kicking. Please don’t judge everyone’s Wado experience so quickly.

Tim

[claas]

We have so many defenses against straight line attacks that to add not much 2-3 more drills just to give an idea of other attacks would make the syllabus really big?
I just believe it will be better if those drills were existing as guide line to help the student understand how apply the Wado principles outside of the box (jun tsuki gyaku tsuki mae geri and other karate attacks).

Hi acer,

Here I think we see a little of that explicit approach I mentioned earlier. My feeling is completely different from having lots of techniques against a single attack. Instead my feeling is in the dynamics of the defence/attack and also the tactics of the situation. The attack doesn't matter. Many times a straight attack is representative of circular attacks too. The point is on the main performers end. When you study the principle and try out its limits you will notice when the same defence/attack also works against circular attacks and from which side or direction(s). Also how you have to adjust it.

Another point is in distancing in a way that suits the tactics. Training too much against circular attacks would teach a different strategy - one in which you move directly forward. We also have that, but at the same time we learn timing. Training our kumite teaches to move forward if we get the slightest signal that it's a good idea.

But you are partially right, I think. It would be important to learn and see circular attacks from time to time so we can recognize them. It also teaches general mechanics. Teaching application in a broader sense is however very much on the sensei's responsibility. Curricula that get out of the hands from their architect do not serve anyone well. That's why a curriculum that focuses on the main stuff is a good idea, alongside with an instructor who uses it and serves it well. To the student it is better if the curriculum seems small and deep, while at the same time the instructor teaches more broadly, as much as is needed to get the stuff working.

[oneya]

We have so many defenses against straight line attacks that to add not much 2-3 more drills just to give an idea of other attacks would make the syllabus really big?
I just believe it will be better if those drills were existing as guide line to help the student understand how apply the Wado principles outside of the box (jun tsuki gyaku tsuki mae geri and other karate attacks).

Hi acer,

Here I think we see a little of that explicit approach I mentioned earlier. My feeling is completely different from having lots of techniques against a single attack. Instead my feeling is in the dynamics of the defence/attack and also the tactics of the situation. The attack doesn't matter. Many times a straight attack is representative of circular attacks too. The point is on the main performers end. When you study the principle and try out its limits you will notice when the same defence/attack also works against circular attacks and from which side or direction(s). Also how you have to adjust it.

Another point is in distancing in a way that suits the tactics. Training too much against circular attacks would teach a different strategy - one in which you move directly forward. We also have that, but at the same time we learn timing. Training our kumite teaches to move forward if we get the slightest signal that it's a good idea.

But you are partially right, I think. It would be important to learn and see circular attacks from time to time so we can recognize them. It also teaches general mechanics. Teaching application in a broader sense is however very much on the sensei's responsibility. Curricula that get out of the hands from their architect do not serve anyone well. That's why a curriculum that focuses on the main stuff is a good idea, alongside with an instructor who uses it and serves it well. To the student it is better if the curriculum seems small and deep, while at the same time the instructor teaches more broadly, as much as is needed to get the stuff working.

Hi Claas,


A couple of points I have highlighted made me raise an eyebrow.

I think this section right here in your post could be misleading. Wado terminology uses the torimi-ukemi concept which doesn't assign attacking or defensive roles to the participants. The concept of attack and defence being the same thing - kobo ittai - is there to ensure both should be seeking the initiative.


Not even remotely right, learning a Japanese martial art is not a redesign exercise - it is a Do form and everyone must make their journey -- if everything in wado could be asked and answered like a question -- no one would take the journey they speak of...??.

oneya

[karateman7]

Not to talk badly about another school, but it seems as though the introduction of roundhouse punches may bring unwanted results.

http://www.youtube.com/v/aY5xSMvHDgk?fs ... Ccke:param

I can somewhat sympathize with Acer because I had this same thought before. But I realized that every elite warrior class (Samurai, Knights, etc) practiced with the thought of perfecting technique. I can't imagine them saying "Hey, let's swing our sword wildly so we can experience a "real" fight and know how to defend against it."

I kind of look at it as the other have mentioned. Defending against a straight punch should give you the same, if not more, experience as a hook or roundhouse punch. It has more to do with the mindset when you experience a confrontation. You should be more worried about staying in control and controlling the situation than having in mind how to lay the guy out.

[claas]

oneya,

Actually my point was the same as yours, I think. That the idea is not to be "a defender". Hence the "defence/attack"-thought. Using "/" was meant to tell that they are both in the same technique. Or am I missing something here?


karateman7,

There might be unwanted results if the training is like that a lot of the time, but we can't tell the context nor the experience of the group directly, so I wonder what unwanted results you can see from the clip or guess by just seeing it? It's obvious the training method used has a strong physical component in it and atleast I really can't tell much does it make sense in a larger point of view from just seeing this short clip.

[karateman7]

I completely understand because I thought the same thing. But this clip was supposed to represent their style of training. This tells me this is where their focus is.

[oneya]

oneya,

Actually my point was the same as yours, I think. That the idea is not to be "a defender". Hence the "defence/attack"-thought. Using "/" was meant to tell that they are both in the same technique. Or am I missing something here?

No I think maybe I was..

oneya

[acer]

Leg attacks happen in our Dojo. Leg attacks like sunegeri and sukuto fumikomi are part of many Wado syllabi, defences against low line kicks occur in Kihon Gumite.

As low kicks I was mean that (please not focus on show just the move) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdxpG5ySo80 the simple fast and practical move used by many styles as kihon and pair work but not in Wado.

As far back as 1977 I remember Sakagami Sensei teaching defences against kicks to the thigh.

Why oh why they didn’t add this very practical teach then in general syllabus?
The mawashi geri gedan is the first think you will face if you spar with a Kyokushin/Shidokan or Thai/Kickboxer fighter. And yes (one more time) we don’t have not even one drill against it as for example the others styles have and teach all the strategy how to defend avoid and block it as part of basic syllabus just like we have jun tsuki.

[kyudo]

The mawashi geri gedan is the first think you will face if you spar with a Kyokushin/Shidokan or Thai/Kickboxer fighter. And yes (one more time) we don’t have not even one drill against it as for example the others styles have and teach all the strategy how to defend avoid and block it as part of basic syllabus just like we have jun tsuki.

Good luck with blocking a low kick. Most kickboxers don't block it but are trained to endure it. Nevertheless, I encourage using low kicks in my dojo. Exactly because Wado has some great techniques to deal with it. But it involves taisabaki, not blocks. Taisabaki is movement. Junzuki is movement. So that brings us back to square one...