In the last few newsletters I've been telling you about a forthcoming DVD by Don Came 6th dan and UK Kissaki-Kai chief instructor. Well it's now available and I can tell you it's superb! You can buy it from Amazon.co.uk and I've copied all the details below. The DVD has great production values (same team who did my last DVD) and its good close-range no-nonsense stuff. Just the kind of thing I know you'll all enjoy. Definitely one to add to your collection! You can also watch a preview at the bottom of this page!
BLURB: The Kissaki Method: Kissaki-Kai is karate returned to its practical and functional roots. It was founded by Vince Morris, 8th dan, in 1993 at the behest of senior black belt students who had become disillusioned with what the "traditional" karate schools had to offer in terms of "real" fighting techniques. It is less a style but more a series of principles guided by Sensei Morris' "Rules of Combat", a groundbreaking analysis of strategies derived from many real world conflicts. Here, UK Chief Instructor Don Came, presents a series of drills following these Rules that you can apply to your own teaching or training, which can also help you unlock the hidden applications of the kata or forms within your own system. Contents include: Flow drills + defences against a series of common methods of assault, including straight and hook punches, combination punches, headbutts, and various grabs seen as a precursor to a strike... all practised from realistic ranges! These can be used to enhance your own lesson plans and be incorporated into any martial system.
I have had the pleasure of training under Don Sensei on a few occasions now, he is an outstanding karateka and very nice bloke IMO.
Don Sensei is very skilled, and very knowledgeable.
Does Kissaki karate use the Long Stances in their Kata the same as Mainstream Shotokan?
Kissaki and Shihan Morris' ethos is very similar to Iain's and I can see similarities in the way the Bunkai is worked.
I have no idea with regards to the first question and maybe one of the Kissaki-Kai dan grades can answer?
As regards the second line, why do you need a style that only uses a “boxing stance” in its forms?
If it is because that is what you already do, then there would seem little benefit in cross-training in something that is like what you already do? Perhaps you’d be better looking for something different to what you already have?
Or do you have an aversion to low stances generally? If so, I would suggest that may be something to reconsider.
There are times when we want our centre of gravity high (i.e. for mobility) and times when we want it low (i.e. for satiability or when pulling the enemy down and off balance).
We need a variety of stances in order to be prepared for the innumerable variables of conflict. Also we need a variety if stances in order to practice shifting weight effectively (i.e. if you only have one stance, how can beginners practise shifting weight by moving between them?).
The common argument of “high stance = good & low stance = bad” comes from the “mono-context” thinking of karateka vs. karateka sparring. Mobility is key in that context and because they don’t grip each other or fight in the clinch it would be fair to say that high stances are better in that context. However, I think it’s a mistake to extrapolate that to say high stances are the best for all contexts.
Have a “boxer’s posture” in grappling and you’ll be on your back in an instant. High stances, weight no the balls of the feet, etc are not suitable. However, have a “wrestler’s stance” – feet flat, legs quite bent, hips low, etc – in striking only sparring and the lack of mobility will make is very difficult get in an land strikes.
As a quick aside, within karate circles there is often a debate as to which is the best way of performing the stances. Some say that stances should be high, because this increases the mobility of the karateka. Others say that the stances should be low, because this means the karateka's centre of gravity is also low and hence any techniques that are delivered will be more effective. However, common sense should tell you that you should assume whatever stance is required at that instance. If you require mobility, the stance should be high at that particular moment. If you require stability, then the stance should be low. It is always about function and what is appropriate at the time.
I was sparring a boxer last night who has started at the Karate club, very interesting. His punches were lightning and tended to come in waves of 3. It threw me a bit at first but really enjoyed it by the end.
Yes I am but No at the same time, in my core I will always be Ashihara Karate, but what Traditional Karate allows me to do is to understand the Kata more.
Bunkai to me is as important as the kata itself and notwithstanding dedicating my whole life, quitting work etc to study karate, I must find other avenues to give me the knowledge that I seek.
In our first kata, Shoshin No Kata Sono Ichi, (see attached video) in Ashihara it is against basic punches and kicks but due to the influx of 4 years of Wado and 4 years of Tang Soo Do I find that the kata works against grabs etc and that the kata doesn't have to be strike specific, it works from both sides not just the specified strike.
I was amazed in discovering if you feel the kata it can become a stand up grappling kata, thus discovering 3 neck wrenches within the first kata.
Now everything in the style to me makes the style a "Complete" style, not many styles can say that, the only thing I "Feel" I'm missing is how to trip sweep and throw from the kata, and how to counter these attempts against the Karateka.
I had the honour to train with a local Eskrima Instructor and I was amazed at how much the 2 styles could be used together, one took over where one weakened and vice versa.
Mushashi Miyamoto, in his 'Book of 5 Rings' always stated that you should always have a core style but should train in other schools to find you own styles’ weaknesses and strengths.
My issue with Long Stances is an old one; I feel it is a misinterpretation of the old photographs of the old Masters. Even in my "Boxing Stance" style we use the difference stance front stance, Horse Stance, Seichan Stance etc. but as Transitional stances, not as the beginning or final stance that one must get into for the kata to work. I attended a Shotokan school, and witnessed a 2nd Dan in an extremely long front stance saying to some new students that the were no hook punches in Karate, only straight punches, I laughed and said to my mate, if that how you stand I can see why, you'd fall over. I wondered if he'd practiced Tekki Series Kata or Nijushiho Kata and still stuck to his statement!
Well yes and no. The Kissaki group has a lot of Shotokan dojos in it, obviously that's Sensei Morris' background. But Don, the UK head, comes from Wado. So he teaches Wado kata, others teach Shotokan kata. If other 'styles' joined then they'd do their own kata too. Kissaki is less a 'style' and more a series of principles of combat that can be applied to any style.
So, when we perform solo kata, they look like whatever 'style' we've been brought up in Shoto/Wado, etc. It's in the application of the movements that we differ from modern 'traditionalists' and look a lot like what Iain teaches. Some of our bunkai/oyo are identical to Iain's and some different. But again, there's no right or wrong in the sense of 'this movement means you're doing this attack/defence against this assault' - it's a case of whether it's combatively functional whilst utilising the core idea/principle of that movement.
So, I'm certainly with him on his comments above regarding stances and fluidity and transitions.
Here's my long-winded thoughts on the subject. Take them with a grain of salt... One of the most important concepts in the martial art is the idea of rooted power... the ability to express force as efficiently as possible. The easiest way for a beginner to grasp the concept is through stances. It's a lot easier to throw what seems to be a strong solid punch from a stationary rooted stance. Here are the problems I see with the way some traditional schools train stancework... 1). A stationary rooted stance is not the most efficient way to generate power, especially if the stance is rooted, stationary, and the lower extremities are locked in place. That forces the upper body (torso, waist, and arms) to generate most of the force independent from the shift and driving force of the lower body. 2) Related to point number 1, I actually think the transitional movements between stances are more important than the stances themselves, as it's the shifts in body weight and the unitized movements of the body that generate the power, NOT the endpoint of the stance itself. 3) Rooted stances tend to train rootedness... without mobility that is needed in a real self defense situation. In martial artists that I consider to be very good, the remain mobile to get into an advantageous position, and snap into a particular stance for an instant...then abandon the stance to remain mobile. They don't remain stationary in a deep stance when they fight. I used to do a lot of training in fixed step push hands... It's coming back to haunt me, as I'll try to hang onto a particular stance for far too long instead of just stepping to a new root point. 4). Perhaps directly relating to your question, in forms sometimes combat effectiveness is supplanted by other factors, such as how aesthetically pleasing the forms look in competition. Instead of concentrating on mobility in fighting, a long low stance that is solidly planted LOOKS more impressive to the judges. Whether it is more effective in a real self defense situation is very questionable. An analogy of stances in martial arts is the "wedge stance" that everyone uses to learn how to ski. It's slow and inefficient, but it allows people to work on balance and coordination. The goal is to move towards skiing in parallel, which is far more efficient and faster, but requires more coordination. Imagine, then, if there was a group of people that placed primary importance on the "wedge stance" for skiing, and considered it the optimum way to ski. Furthermore, imagine that those people worked to "perfect" the wedge stance, maintaining a 30 degree angle at the tips of the skis, and a 15 degree angle of bend at the knees. They might have the best looking wedge stance on the slopes, but they'll be soundly beaten in a race by anyone who has picked up parallel skiing. To sum it up, I think the idea of long, low stances has it's uses in conditioning, and in certain very limited applications (horse riding stances when snapping into a shoulder throw for stability, for example). However, doing long low stances all of the time is not sufficient training for actual combat situations, and may actually ingrain some bad habits. So that's my thoughts. Critique as needed!
When it need to be yes, but then it is deep when Don takes people to the floor. I don’t see them using one stance (“the stance”) but shifting weight as needed. Which is what good stances are. This aversion to deep stances would suggest to me that you don’t get what stances are for?
Surely it’s best to have a deep stance when that helps get bodyweight into the technique in question? Or do you think it is always better to be high regardless? If so, why?
That’s probably because it’s not Wado :-) The title of the DVD is “The Kissaki Method” and it is the Kissaki method that is presented on the DVD. Jon’s post above makes a good job of explain what that is i.e.
Kissaki is less a 'style' and more a series of principles of combat that can be applied to any style.
I've never thought of Enshin / Ashihara as only using a fighting stance.
It's more a case of not holding 'mid-points'. i.e. moving from fighting stance back to fighting stance and travelling through whatever stance is required in between. (classic example: Pulling the front leg back into kokutsu dachi to kick off the front leg then immediately returning to fighting stance.
As to the 'getting the legs stronger' theory, I've never bought it. Heavy squats or deadlifts do a much better job.
Absolutely! I see stances as being temporary positions that we move through in order to facilitate the efficient movement of bodyweight. Obviously less experienced people need to know what positions they need to be moving through (i.e. the “stance”), but we frequently see these temporary positions being thought of as fixed postures and ends in themselves.
I love Nakasone’s line on this where he said that, “Karate has many stances, it also has none”. When we are breaking things down we have stances, but in application we have no stances and just fluid motion. Funakoshi also said that, “Beginners use stances, more advanced karateka use natural postures”. I take that to mean that the stances (snapshots of motion) become the natural movement of the more experienced student.
I’m with you there too. I can’t find much value in the static holing of stances for extended periods. It’s not transferable as we don’t remain static for long periods of time in conflict (unless unconscious :-).
This has been selling very well for us. And I'm just adding it to the Fulfilled by Amazon category to help deliveries to other parts of the world.
If you're thinking of getting one for Xmas (hint!), please order soon as I'll need to order more fromn the duplicators.