Gi Color

[Van Canna]

One you get out of the "duel" thinking mode, lots of possibilities become more intuitive.

True. This is what does us in and causes costernation in real encounters for some of us. It is all about programming the mind even as we do 'duel' exercises.

[John Giacoletti]

Sensei Van wrote:

I

was more interested in your views of the style concessions to the Japanese, and how the ‘old style’ softened to be more palatable to US servicemen. The ‘mechanics’ of the softening.

What techniques underwent a ‘softening’ and how_

And how the style was directed _ and or modified _if you will_ to accommodate sport karate.

We all are waiting on Seizen Breyette's information on these and other matters relating to "old style" and the subsequent changes.

I know he has historical videos to documents these changes.

Van, you are his outlet for this information in the States. Perhaps you could encourage Gordie San to release some additional data to us on how these changes occured and the individuals and groups involved in the growth of Uechi Ryu.

I am as eager as you are to get filled-in on these developmental changes.

[Van Canna]

Hi John,

Thanks for the response. I do have the information, some of which I did post a while back and some of which I could not _ lest we flame world war three.

The reason of my interest in your source of the information
So as to prevent any backlash upon sensei Breyette.

As you know the argument of _ 'Old style' v. 'New' is not well received and causes much consternation, notwithstanding Gordi’s caveat:

 Not better than the modern style _ not worse_ Just different. <

So in asking you, John, I was just wondering if there was another ‘take’ on this and the source of it, in the interest of historical perspective.

[gmattson]

learning about the "old" ways as Gordi explains it. Its the editorial sidebars that raise our bull@#$% meters.

From both a historical perspective and as a comparison to what we do today, such discussions are enjoyable and helps us understand our sport a bit better.

But when we begin to speculate that one way is "better" because it is "more pure" than the other, that is when you lose my attention and begin to enter that zone of "hero worshiping" that many of us joke about when hearing about Shushiwa's encounter with the Tiger.

Every sport has a "historical" perspective, but few modern athletes accept that they should change the way they practice because an "old-timer" broke a record in the sport back in 1901, speculating we could break 2006 records adopting the "old ways".

Of course, this is just my opinion..

[Van Canna]

Good discussion.

But we all know that the style underwent a 'modernization'

Are we clear on what that means and how 'modern' differs from 'old'?

And John wrote

...and the softening of the art by Kanei Uechi Sensei to make it more palatable to US servicemen.

"softening" certainly implies many things that could be taken the wrong way, and this is not to blame
John - because we have heard this argument in many forms dozens of times.

Some people feel very strongly about that.

George, if this is true, then it would mean that you and other servicemen in okinawa, were fed the 'softening' _

So I think this a good question to resolve.

[Stryke]

helps us understand our sport a bit better.

sport ?

"softening" certainly implies many things that could be taken the wrong way, and this is not to blame
John - because we have heard this argument in many forms dozens of times.

Some people feel very strongly about that.

was it always a sport or are we admitting the change ?

ANd i`m not trolling , Ive been after this information from day one and have always received we do it the traditional way as the response .

If anythings to controversial I`d be indebted if I was let known offline .

[Van Canna]

Gem

From both a historical perspective and as a comparison to what we do today, such discussions are enjoyable and helps us understand our sport a bit better.

George, are we sure we should be referring to Uechi Ryu as a 'sport' v. a ‘fighting art' _?

I know that a great number of people reading this discussion feel as follows:

1. One of the primary differences between martial sports and arts is in their training methods.


2. The question therefore arises as to whether these practices represent the earnest skills of a martial art, or constitute those of a stylized combat sport?

3. For that matter, how do you objectively determine if what you are studying, or what you are being taught, is a legitimate historical fighting skill?

4. The answer depends upon the approach, the attitude, and the intention of your study and the tools it employs in its method.

5. Are you rehearsing moves as lethal killing actions applicable in real fighting, or as only those movements allowed under pretend tournaments?

6. Do you ever stop to recognize and comprehend the difference? Do you train in your art as "preparation" for combat –even though you know it will never occur –or just play it as a game?

7. Are you able to practice and execute actions and moves that would have been reasonably used in historical combat in a manner by which people really fought, or are you limited and restricted to a belief as to what is sporting?


8. Does your concern for safety in mock fighting mean that more lethal and dangerous techniques are never explored or learned at any time under any conditions of training?


9. Between a martial art and a combat sport, even when each is pursued as a “non-lethal combative”, there are differences in the tools and their application, in the conditions, the environment, training exercises, practice drills, and range of activities and actions, as well as general intent.

So the ‘softening’ that John brings up and is shared by many more _ can be a crucial pivotal point of discussion of ‘old’ v. ‘modern’ _ What are we doing now that wasn't done then _ or viceversa, that is of the essence to our fighting art?

[Stryke]

Uechi-ryu doesnt strike me as a sport , in fact it doesnt seem to be as successfull as a sport as other karate styles .

I thought I heard the IUKF isnt even running an adult tournament this year ? , is this right ?

what sets Uechi apart is it`s focus and weapons , it`s conditioning , and practical in close confrontational style , with more structurally practical grabbing and striking techniques .

It`s an art in my mind , and more importantly a martial one .

I look forward to when folks like me can get more information on the old ways .

this has always been my focus as a researcher and as a martial artist .

Uechi is very lucky in the fact it does not need to be a generic karate style , competing under generic rules , and heading towards generic technique .

[gmattson]

I guess Takara and the other seniors who were training with Uechi sensei years before this mysterious "transition" period, suddenly heard about Uechi becoming "soft" and immediately began training in a different manner. How many of you reading this would do that???

Why not look at what Shoheiryu has attempted to do with the changes in Uechi since the split. How many in the new organization actually changed what they were doing? Yes, they may have learned a couple of new drills and a new kata, but the training emphasis doesn't get changed over a couple years. You don't "soften" (read make less effective/efficient/tough/mean/worthy) a system of any kind in the space of a few years. And don't tell me seniors who trained "Hard" for many years would suddenly become "soft" because of some kind of edict from anyone! The whole idea is preposterous.

Its amazing to listen to the adoration of certain seniors, who obviously are training in the same system as the rest of us, but who elect to take their training to a higher level and become better athletes, fighters, etc. Apparently, some people were not affected by this "softening" process.

Major changes, such as the ones some of you are attempting to attribute to Uechi, Kanei and other senior teachers, may have added a couple of kata and other drills, but you really have to stretch the point to make an argument that Uechi was somehow "watered down" because they suddenly discovered sport karate or because the Barbarians from America suddenly took an interest in what they were doing.

Tomoyose claimed he taught me "Kanbun's way" and there definately were some minor differences in the way he and Uechi Kanei taught me. Reminds me of some of the modern seniors teaching methods. . . We are all different, but we are still practicing the same system.

Making an assumption that a line was drawn in time and everyone who walked over that line suddenly became "soft" and those who remained were in some way doing the "real" thing just doesn't make sense. I would bet a beer that Kanbun had his "average" students, just as Kanei had his "average" students and each of us teachers have our "average" students. Doesn't have anything at all to do with one or two modified techniques in training.

[gmattson]

Training emphasis is a very individual thing. Some will elect to train for realism and focus entirely on what is being described as "real" fighting.

Others will elect to do it as a sport. Gary Khoury and Carlos comes to mind. Certainly the fact that they focus on the sport aspect hasn't hurt their "real" fighting ability.

Others, who will spend a lifetime training in the "old, old, old" and "hard" ways, will never be able to fight. . . in spite of their teachers' claiming to be teaching them the "real" way.

Its all in the individual, his/her heart and mindset when the chips are down.

The rest of this speculation simply makes good discussion.

[gmattson]

I wish Roy Bedard would jump in here. Roy was, for many years one of the best international sport fighters in the USA. He considers his sport training to far superior to what he sees taking place in many dojo that claim to be "realist" dojo. He believes his sport training has contributed a great deal to his effectiveness now as a pretty tough hombre.

I wish other sport fighters would fairly evaluate what they actually trained in as whatever karate system they may have learned, and how this training has made them better prepared to actually fight or whether it has hurt them in comparison to a training he might have elected to take, where there was no sparring and a lot of "old" style training.

[Stryke]

I dont follow you George , you say it is interesting and enlightening to ask questions about the old ways versus the new ways

thats all were doing

you allude to the art as a sport

All I`m after is any information on how things may have been done differently , the only thing of interest Ive found in this area is in the curriculum , and the wakayama dojo tape

we have seniors saying they introduced new katas to have something to sell .

I dont find that wrong , I respect there honesty .

yu may find the new methods fit you better , I`m not saying it`s better or worse , I`d just prefer to know which is which . I dont like some of the new things , It would be nice to know what is and isnt Uechi in what i`m doing .

ruleset and objective set training focus , training focus sets results .

there are sport fighters who ****** and realists who ****** , lets keep this conversation about historical fact , so we can keep an accurate historical record and let folks make up there own minds .

[gmattson]

is that the subject of old ways vs new ways are fun discussions, but are unlikely to be an accurate assessment of how Kanbun trained in China (or even what systems he studied) or how he trained when he was in Japan (as seen by demonstrations of his first student's class) or of how he taught later in his life.

If anyone proposes that his methods remained exactly the same throughout, we should ask ourselves if he actually got better as an individual or as a teacher, because he preserved his teacher's (Shushiwa) methods exactly for all those years in a kind of "time capsul" of a martial art method.

Kanbun learned in China, by Chinese. Anyone who has studied with a Chinese teacher will say that their methods are at best "similar" from year to year. Only in the West do we attempt to preserve something that has continued and will (even through attempts to keep it the same) continue to evolve and eventually split into more unique methods.

Kanbun didn't study one method or from one teacher.

Certainly he didn't come home with what he thought was some kind of sacred ritual that he had to preserve forever. This came later, by students who studied from one person and attributed a whole lot more of ritual into what was taught than the teacher who was presenting it.

Kanei and the other teachers, saw the future in uechi-ryu in the sport and increasing the content for the benefit of the Westerners and the public, to whom they were giving demos and trying to attract students. If Kanbun had directed Kanei to preserve his way, his son probably would have tried. I never got the feeling that the Okinawans felt that the "old" or "original Kanbun way, was something that was the best possible way.

(Please excuse my rambling... if I have time tomorrow, I'll try to edit to make my point in a clearer manner)

[MikeK]

Sounded pretty clear to me George.

Something I learned from being a dad, you can't preserve something that is still growing and adapting. About the only thing you can preserve is something that's dead and even then only the shell of what it once was.

[Stryke]

Thats a good point George , and thanks for explaining

however I consider myself a amatuer researcher , and I want all the storys , all the information , all the smallest peices so i can make an educated decission . I cant get 100 % how they trained but I can get an understanding of the older focus , the katas they did for example is an obvious point , the kind of drills they used .

the wakayama footage was a revelation the older style kotikitae , which resmebles a drill I do and learn form elsewhere .

and yes of course I will do what I think best as will any sane person .

There is to much this is tradition , this is Uechi , when clearly it`s always been evolving and should continue to evolve .

as you`ve said before your karate in the 60`s isnt the karate you teach today , and so it shouldn`t be .