30 posts / 0 new
Last post
Lionel Froidure
Lionel Froidure's picture
Stop attacking Oi Zuki

Hello everybody, 

I have uploaded a new video about the fact that most of the time, in "traditional" karaté, the main attack is Oi Zuki. That's my problem. 

Don"t forget to turn on the english subtitles.

Thanks and have a great day.

Lionel

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Thanks for sharing. The English subtitles help me :-) Someone who speaks many languages is “multi-lingual”. Someone who speaks two languages is “bi-lingual”. Someone who speaks one language is probably British or American :-)

Definitely a major problem with 3K karate … they have a million ways to defend the same unrealistic strike from an exaggerated distance, and no way to deal with anything realistic.

All the best,

Iain

Kevin73
Kevin73's picture

When I see videos like that, while I agree with them, my next thought is "Japanese Karate".  When sparring was first introduced it was based on Kendo and their distance and style of sparring.  That is why it does not match reality.  Okinawan karate did not originally have that, they used two person "flow drills" in their sparring like yakusoku kumite.  Granted, after the popularity of karate started to rise, many okinawan styles DID incorporate that manner of ippon kumite into their training.

But, they did not lose the applications of their kata and practiced those like you address in the video (self-defense scenarios like grabs etc.)

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Hi Kevin,

Good post and the video you linked to was interesting. The program shown was “Tape 8” of Morio Higaonna’s “Mastering Traditional Okinawan Goju-Ryu” (Panther Productions). It’s an old tape, but, having done a little digging (not obvious at first glance), it does not look like the person who posted it on YouTube is the copyright holder. I’ve therefore removed the link and would encourage folk to find it from legitimate sources that will compensate Mr Higaonna and Panther Productions for their work.

I get what you mean by “Japanese karate”, but personally prefer the term “3K karate” (kata, kihon and kumite practised as seperate disciplines with no realistic training). 3K karate certainly originated in Japan, but these days there is good and bad karate the world over … so not all Japanese karate is 3K karate, just as not all Okinawan karate is application based (as you mentioned in your post).

The influence of “Kendo distances” and shift to long-range karate vs karate thinking is a very good point. The good news is things seem to be, on the whole, shifting back the right way. I’m sure that future generations will rightly conclude that karate got a little weird for a few decades (the “oi-zuki obsession era”) before getting back on track.

All the best,

Iain

Wastelander
Wastelander's picture

We do have yakusoku kumite drills in the style I practice (Okinawan Shorin-Ryu, Kobayashi) that utilize oi-tsuki, and we will sometimes also use that technique to introduce things to our students, before moving them onto realistic attacks. I just returned from a training camp for our organization, and every time I attend one, I realize how lucky I am to have the instructors that I do, because not everyone in our organization gets the same type of practicality in their training. My Sensei taught a session over the weekend on taking techniques from our yakusoku kumite drills, and adapting them to self defense, which is something we do all the time. He said that many people had a great deal of trouble dealing with being attacked by things other than oi-tsuki, and that many of them had a hard time even getting themselves to attack differently. It's truly, deeply ingrained in a lot of people, I'm afraid.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Wastelander wrote:
many people had a great deal of trouble dealing with being attacked by things other than oi-tsuki, and that many of them had a hard time even getting themselves to attack differently. It's truly, deeply ingrained in a lot of people, I'm afraid.

Definitely. Another issue with this type of practise is that it is almost always reactive i.e. Person A attacks Oi-Zuki, and then Person B responds. Just as you notice that some people have problems shifting away from formal practise, I often see that people can’t act proactively because they have been conditioned not to.

I will show a proactive method, and then they will look at each other awaiting an “attack” that will permit them to move. It’s a huge problem because it effectively puts the enemy in charge, indoctrinates hesitation, and assumes disadvantage. When we realise violence is unavoidable, then it needs to happen on our terms.

We should have loads of drills that have us acting proactively and then dealing with the enemy’s attempts to thwart our methods. Those will be the most effective drills that will indoctrinate the right mind-set i.e. “deal with the situation proactively, decisively and from a position of advantage” as opposed to “Let the enemy dictate terms, hesitate, and never act until you are already disadvantaged”.  

We should definitely drill defensive methods against realistic attacks, but, more importantly, we should also drill taking the initiative and negating the enemy’s attempts to stop our own attacks. We definitely do a lot more of the latter in my dojo than the former.

I cover this in more detail in this article (point 2):

https://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/article/two-things-criminals-know-about-violence-you-should-know-too

All the best,

Iain

Stevenson
Stevenson's picture

Hmmm...

Well maybe the way I practise karate has changed so much I don't recognize this as a problem. 

Oi Zuki is absolutely one of my most effective techniques - but I don't employ the way it's demonstrated in the video with a step through. I do it with a drop step and I usually use it as counter. In full contact it absolutely puts guys on their backsides because it's easy to get your structure completely right. The context is if you are being rushed, if someone is closing distance dropping into oi zuki with the drop step to add power means they run into an immovable structure which ruins their attack, their own structure and balance. Rory Miller is a big fan of the punch and notes that it was a favourite of the boxer Jack Dempsey.

Another point to make about it is that we teach it with our shoulders square. But in actual fact it's more effective with your shoulders at 45 degrees or even more - it gives you more reach and range and the energy aligns along your body all the way to your supporting leg better.

I've knocked over guys much bigger than me with this technique, especially if its timed just right. But I would use it as a counter and not as an attack.

Ian H
Ian H's picture

Iain Abernethy wrote:
... more importantly, we should also drill taking the initiative and negating the enemy’s attempts to stop our own attacks. 

Kumite drills are one of the few times most karate-ka will actively practive taking the initiative ... and most kumite coaches tend to shy away from the oi-tsuki as well, for what it's worth.  A kumite drill along the lines of "five seconds left, you are down by one point ... go!" could get people thinking about attacking rather than thinking about reacting and counter-attacking. 

(Not that kumite is the solution for everything or is devoid of its own problems, though.  Treating a civilian self-defence situation as if it were a kumite match makes about as much sense as trying to scare off a mugger by performing a tournament kata.  But a lot of students whose bunkai experience consists of waiting for an oi-tsuki and countering it would understand initiating an attack in a kumite setting, and that may be a good entry point for the concept.)

diadicic
diadicic's picture

très bien

I am fluent in two languages.

English US and Google...:)

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Stevenson wrote:
Hmmm...Well maybe the way I practise karate has changed so much I don't recognize this as a problem.

We may be talking at crossed purposes? The fact that many karateka are conditioned to think defensively, and even then only learn “defences” against one or two formal attacks from a greatly exaggerated distance is defiantly a problem.

Stevenson wrote:
Oi Zuki is absolutely one of my most effective techniques

Mine too. It’s massively powerful. However, it’s not the effectiveness of the technique (when done right) that is being discussed, but the fact it’s pretty much all many karateka practise dealing with. It’s that one-dimensional training that is the problem … especially when done in such a formal way.

I would not use it to close the gap against an advancing enemy in the way you describe. To me, it’s a way to smash right though an enemy and a way to neutralise any attempt to buy space to regroup. Against an advancing enemy, I’d be looking to angle off.

I totally agree it is a fantastic punch when done right (drive through target, hiki-te put to use, etc) … but that and, that alone, in a very formal way is hardly a realistic replication of real world violence. That’s the point being made in the thread.

All the best,

Iain

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

diadicic wrote:

très bien

I am fluent in two languages.

English US and Google...:)

Brilliant! I’ve had conversations in both French and Russian today with the help to google :-)

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Ian H wrote:
Kumite drills are one of the few times most karate-ka will actively practive taking the initiative

That’s true. If they also do it in self-defence drills, bunkai drills, pad drills, and pretty much every other drill then they’d be better able to protect themselves. Relatively few of my drills are reactive, and those that are, are still done in an “attacking way” with a view to simultaneously getting back to a position of advantage and relentlessly exploiting that advantage.  

Ian H wrote:
A kumite drill along the lines of "five seconds left, you are down by one point ... go!" could get people thinking about attacking rather than thinking about reacting and counter-attacking.

That’s also true, but as you say it would be in a “kumite match way”.

Perhaps we could phrase the question this way,

“You have split second to determine if you go home safely or whether to you get badly injured, physiologically scared, sexually assaulted, or even killed. Do you want to act in this movement in a forceful and dominating way, or do you want to wait, give the criminal the advantage and try to react what they throw at you? That’s what I thought. So ACT!”

As Kipling wrote, “If you can fill the unforgiving minute. With sixty seconds' worth of distance run …”

Reacting always has us behind the curve of events. It makes us an effect not a cause. A cork bobbing in the ocean. Proactively acting has us filling every single second in a way that makes it far more likely we achieve our objective.

This switch in mind-set is probably the single most effective thing we can do when it comes to our ability to deal with violence.

All the best,

Iain

Kevin73
Kevin73's picture

I like the term "3K Karate", it does explain it better since that concept was brought back to Okinawa and used by many schools as a template during karate's early expansion.

Thanks for removing the link, I did not bother to look more closely at it.  Just posted one of the first I found of the self-defense techniques being trained.  I know there are some Uechi-Ryu clips on youtube as well showing the traditional self-defense techniques.  

Stevenson
Stevenson's picture

it’s not the effectiveness of the technique (when done right) that is being discussed, but the fact it’s pretty much all many karateka practise dealing with. It’s that one-dimensional training that is the problem … especially when done in such a formal way.

Ah - ok! I thought that the video was pointing out that it was ineffective as a form of attack, too easy to counter. I guess I am so used to being in circles that have moved on from this kind of approach to karate it's hard to appreciate that it still goes on. A bit like not recognising that mysogony or racism still occurs in society even though it is alien to the part of society I move in.

I would not use it to close the gap against an advancing enemy in the way you describe. To me, it’s a way to smash right though an enemy and a way to neutralise any attempt to buy space to regroup. Against an advancing enemy, I’d be looking to angle off.

Well it's horses for courses of course, but I find that in the context I find it useful; a) tai sabaki is too slow or my feet aren't positioned ideally b) moving off to the side might be ideal but a savvy opponent will just chase you, and c) it puts you ahead in the OODA loop giving you the initiative.

If fighting has a rhythm then this technique (at least the way I practise it) falls in between the beats. I find it most effective against larger opponents that are trying to close distance. And in the context I use it most often the hike-te hand is empty because if you are close enough to grab something (with it) they will be close enough to have already hit you. I liken it to a sword lunge and I think I got the idea for it from a remark made by one of Funakoshi's teachers....I think Azato from memory. Then Rory talked about the drop step for generating power and it fell into place. (Literally).

And while I have never used it in a real world situation, having practised some full contact sparring (not the same thing I know) and experienced it's simplicity and effectiveness it's definitely a go to for me in practical application for all the reasons it worked in the dojo. But for sure - if the point of the thread is decry it as an HAV, especially in the formal way described then for sure - it's not at all a useful thing to learn to defend against.

Kevin73
Kevin73's picture

http://dandjurdjevic.blogspot.com/2013/02/step-through-lunge-punches-as-...

Interesting read on step through lunge punches and their application and use in MMA

Stevenson
Stevenson's picture

That was very interesting. It's great to actually sometimes challenge or defend notions and think about them. It might all seem academic but I really think it can improve your training - you train with an understanding and purpose. Well it does for me....

For me, the context for a step through oi zuki is pretty much the one Iain outlined earlier - it's one of the first techniques we learn and teach from tokaikyu shodan - which is a shotokan basic kata we also practise. Whereby you are grabbing something, most likely an arm or clothing and driving through with the punch and the step through adding weight or extra reach if the opponent retreats. But nidan has the same situation with gyaku and driving through with a kick. Personally, and maybe this is because I am GoJu orientated, I am reaching for other techniques in the same situation.

I thought the video showed some interesting perspectives too.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Kevin73 wrote:

http://dandjurdjevic.blogspot.com/2013/02/step-through-lunge-punches-as-stem-cell.html

Interesting read on step through lunge punches and their application and use in MMA

The gif of Machida punching is a good one to illustrate the fighting use of Oi-Zuki.

Notice how impact is made while moving (i.e. when moving to the “stance”) and how the hiki-te is active in clearing the path. Some very traditional things going on there within a modern context.

All the best,

Iain

Kevin73
Kevin73's picture

I think that Machida is a VERY good example of "traditional karate" in an MMA context.  He holds Dan ranking in Shotokan.  He also had the spectacular KO of Randy Couture using the double kick from Chinto kata.  Here is a clip of it, not sure how to imbed youtube.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

 

Kevin73 wrote:
He also had the spectacular KO of Randy Couture using the double kick from Chinto kata.

It’s the same kick, but Machida attributed it Kanku-Dai (Kushanku):

http://www.mixedmartialarts.com/news/Machida-explains-fight-ending-kick

Guilherme Cruz: Where did you take that kick from?

Lyoto Machida: This kick is from Karate, it’s from the kata Kanku Dai. When I started my preparation, after I did a hernia surgery, I couldn’t do everything in training, so my father told me to train three or four types of kicks and use them in sparring, but very carefully, because they hurt a lot, it’s like the elbow. When I came to Canada I met Steven Seagal, and he told “Lyoto, this kick will hit”. But I wasn’t worried to use it or not, I’d do it if the opportunity came. I came more relaxed to the second round and hit that. It’s not like it came from nowhere.

Kevin73 wrote:
Here is a clip of it, not sure how to imbed youtube.

That’s something only I can do (with my moderator powers). So if you post the link, I’ll embed it the next time I’m online … as I’ve just done :-)

All the best,

Iain

Marc
Marc's picture

Iain Abernethy wrote:

The gif of Machida punching is a good one to illustrate the fighting use of Oi-Zuki.

Notice how impact is made while moving (i.e. when moving to the “stance”) and how the hiki-te is active in clearing the path.

I agree, it's pretty much an Oi-Zuki. And since it makes no sense to connect the punch at the end of the movement (no energy left for impact), as always the actual technique "happens" half way through the movement.

I think a very good example of an Oi-Zuki as it was intended is Iain's demonstration of the sequence in kata Jion where you go "Age-Uke / Gyaku-Zuki / Age-Uke / Gyaku-Zuki / Age-Uke / Oi-Zuki".

Jump to right place: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=88&v=iZx9RJyX9f4

Here the Oi-Zuki is used instead of Gyaku-Zuki in case the opponent steps or falls away from you. "If he starts to move away from me there: Move!"

That seems to be in line with the literal meaning of Oi-Zuki: "pursuit thrust" (source: http://tangorin.com/general/追い突き).

Keep in mind that you take a full step (one foot passing the other) in an Oi-Zuki.

I feel that "lunge punch" doesn't only sound like a bully forcefully taking your school sandwich, but that it also is a misleading translation of Oi-Zuki. A lunge punch would look more like a Kizami-Zuki.

Compare to the lunge in fencing:

Note that "Kizami-Zuki" does not literally mean "lunge punch", but the move is a lunge. (See http://tangorin.com/general/刻み突き for the literal meaning.)

Of course the coolest Oi-Zuki in the history of movie-making is the first fight scene in "Kuro Obi - Black Belt":

Jump to right place: https://youtu.be/XpyDXzusTvo?t=127

(I said coolest, not smartest. It is completely ego-driven.)

Take care

Marc

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Nice post Marc!

Marc wrote:
I agree, it's pretty much an Oi-Zuki. And since it makes no sense to connect the punch at the end of the movement (no energy left for impact), as always the actual technique "happens" half way through the movement.

That’s the key I think. The idea of the body stopping moving (stance assumed) and then the “impact” being delivered devoid of all bodyweight is ridiculous when examined. I think that misunderstanding comes from stances being incorrectly been seen as static as opposed to positions we fluidly move too and through. As you say, we are impacting as we move; not after we move. Machida’s Oi-Zuki shows that nicely. This is well established in the writings of the past masters too. More on that in this article: https://iainabernethy.co.uk/article/my-stance-stances

All the best,

Iain

Creidiki
Creidiki's picture

In the defence of oi-tzugi

(You knew someone was going to do it didn't you?)

Backround: Modelling

Calvin's dad is not wrong as such, that is certainly one way of doing it, but in engineering its more efficient to construct a model, either physical scale model or abstract mathematical one. Modelling has several advantages, I can throw scenarios against models and see how they react, then tweak my design based on results and re-model this is much cheaper than full scale prototyping not needing to fish trucks from the river.

Oi-Tzugi as model of an attack

Stepping punch is fairly good model of the opening moves of common forms of attack in violent confrontation. Single handed shove, Grab & haymaker, front had haymaker and sucker punch. Like any model it is very limited in scope. Like any model it will perform very poorly if implemented in real life ("The street fight[tm]") you cannot take a scale model of a bridge and expect to drive truck oveer it. But its a wonderful tool to study movement, force and stability. If you are fortunate enough to train Shotokan cheeky with its extra long stances and larger than life techniques, then you have a model which is under microscope and everything is enlarged 1000x

Limitations of model

To be an effecctive tool, model must be limited in scope, the more variables you bring into play, poorer your result. This is why weather forecasts are exponentially worse on the long run. That means you cannot simply build your model and expect it to work right of the bat. You must do prototyping and testing under controlled circumstances. In Karate terms this would be free/live sparring. This allows you to fail safely, fix the problems and go bact to you model. So oi-tzugi is a tool for development but only for some aspects.

Summary

So the engineer is you and the end product you are expected to develop is efficient self defence. You are going through endless develpment cycle using basic tools to model  and prototype while hoping never to implement production. Oi-tsugi models some but only some of the most common attacs you should have models for others and should neither abandon or over-emphasize free sparring. My 0.02€

 

calaveraz
calaveraz's picture

Though I totally support the initial topic here, that using Oi-zuki (and only Oi-zuki) to demonstrate or practise attacks is kind of weired and should be abandoned, I still think that the Oi-Zuki is an extremly valuable technique. The movement in this vid from MMA shown by Ian is the same move I used myself many times. And with the small addition of adding an Ashi-Barai to block the enemies retreat option here (which is what I usually do) instead of just stepping forward  it becomes a devastating technique, since the enemy cannot avoid the impact as here. So the Oi-Zuki has its value even as first strike attack, of course not as a "dry" long rang attack. It is also something in your mind than you perform this. Its kind of "Push forward! Take momentum and dont take prisoners!".

br

Marc

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Creidiki wrote:
Calvin's dad is not wrong as such, that is certainly one way of doing it ...

I can’t say I agree with the sentiment. I worked in engineering and it was always a case of knowing exactly that the problem was and then engineering the solution. One-move, formal attacks from long distance as not the problem. Close-range explosive onslaughts are the problem. If you don’t get the problem right, then any solution is going to be flawed.

In engineering if you fail to fully understand the problem then you get “solutions” that will fail; often with catastrophic results.

Creidiki wrote:
Oi-Zuki as model of an attack

It’s a very poor, inaccurate model … and we can see the kind of “solutions” it engenders. It leads to pointless “one-step sparring” drills that are have no real relevance to either self-protection or sparring:

https://iainabernethy.co.uk/content/one-step-sparring-podcast

These practises persist because the model is wrong. Add in some realism, and everything “learnt” in one-step sparring comes undone.

I can build a bridge out of balsawood, and it will look fine. Some could argue it is even a good “model” of what a bridge should look like. However, the instant Calvin and family test the bridge they are all going to die.

I failed to understand just how heavy a real car is; and because I didn’t understand the problem my solution failed the instant it had to perform.

That’s the problem we have with one-steps that respond to oi-zuki; there is a failure to realise what real violence is like, hence the solution to the problem is flawed, and when reality comes a knocking it will make that clear in the form of a life-threatening disaster.

Creidiki wrote:
In Karate terms this would be free/live sparring. This allows you to fail safely, fix the problems and go back to you model.

Testing can also show the model is totally flawed and it’s time for a major rethink. One-step sparring has been thoroughly tested and it’s an awful model … and the main reason it’s awful is because the assumptions about the problem are 1000 miles away from the truth. However, that painful realisation is only possible if the test is a real test! If I send a toy car over my balsawood bridge it will seem to “work”. And one-step methods “work” against oi-zukis too. Indeed, they will even seem to “work” against “sparring” that acts like one-steps. However, do something edging toward reality (even with relatively low intensity and safety measures in place) and the failure of the one-step / oi-zuki attack method of training is undeniable. That’s why it is so widely rejected in pragmatic circles.

Creidiki wrote:
you have a model which is under microscope and everything is enlarged 1000x

You could use the “scale model” argument, but as Wikipedia tells us:

“To be a true scale model, all relevant aspects must be accurately modeled, such as material properties, so the model's interaction with the outside world is reliably related to the original object's interaction with the real world.”

One-steps sparring and the oi-zuki attack model are therefore not a good “scale model” because the models interaction of the outside world is not reliably related to the original object's interaction with the real world i.e. what happens in one-steps is nothing like real world violence; irrespective of scale / intensity.

This is not a problem with Shotokan because many styles have the “oi-zuki / one step” issue. Shotokan is a great system. It’s the training method, common to many styles, that is the issue.

Creidiki wrote:
So the engineer is you and the end product you are expected to develop is efficient self-defence. You are going through endless development cycle using basic tools to model and prototype while hoping never to implement production.

Again, fail to get an accurate grip of the problem and you can spend forever running around and around in circles and never get close to a workable solution. A real engineer would drop a flawed model in favour of a better one in a heartbeat. This is because they want a real workable solution.

I feel many karateka are too invested in certain practises to be objective. Instead of problem defining solution, they have a “solution” they are so invested in that they choose to deny the nature of the problem, or seek to reinvent the problem.

When people didn’t understand aeronautics properly, they came up with things like this:

As someone writing this in an airport who is about to board a plane, I’m pleased engineers realised they had their understating wrong and dumped things known to not work when actually tested. This is what karateka need to do too.

In the cartoon, I’m on the side of Calvin’s mum. The dad should not just make stuff up and he should be honest about his ignorance. Instead he talked with authority and proposed a solution that people who actually have experience of building bridges would laugh at and know to be dangerous and inefficient. To run with analogy: Calvin = Student, Dad = Ill-informed Sensei, Mum = The voice of reason who knows that Calvin would have been better served learning the truth of the matter.

If Calvin had to build and cross a bridge when his life-depended on it (which what we are talking about when it comes to self-protection), he would realise his dad had been talking nonsense way too late to anything about it.

Those who are doing endless one-step defences against endless oi-zukis are in a similar situation. Their “solution” will fail catastrophically when reality imposes itself.  No amount of tautological justification will change that.

My advice, don’t listen to sensei dad :-) There are more practical and efficient (and fun!) ways of training that are genuinely useful.

All the best,

Iain

Creidiki
Creidiki's picture

Iain Abernethy wrote:

Testing can also show the model is totally flawed and it’s time for a major rethink. One-step sparring has been thoroughly tested and it’s an awful model

Model for what? Full self defense encounter? I agree, one step sparring is a horrible, awful model for that. Sensei advocating robotic repetition of one-step sparring as primary tool is doing disservice to student and karate. How about a model to study body ,mechanics, generating and directing force, weak and strong angles of stances.

If we can agree that formal stances and steps are horrible idea in real encounter or even sparring, but valuable teaching tool for balance, weight distribution and control of movement. then cannot formal one step sparring be the same. As long as we recognize the limitations of both and do not try to strech them further than they are useful, basic modelling of how human body mechanics work.

Using the comic analogy, Calvins dad says that you should get into real self defence encounters until you find out what works and what not. Sure enough, after enough fails you build something that works but the price is high.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Creidiki wrote:
Model for what? Full self defense encounter? I agree, one step sparring is a horrible, awful model for that. Sensei advocating robotic repetition of one-step sparring as primary tool is doing disservice to student and karate. How about a model to study body ,mechanics, generating and directing force, weak and strong angles of stances.

I think it’s a terrible model full stop. The whole nature of one-steps has no relevance to actual conflict and hence it is a martial dead end. The only thing one-steps really teach is how to be good at one-steps.

A good model will be a scaled down version of the actual thing. So we are better served by practising our body mechanics, power generation, posture and movement at close-range with realistic actions. For learning purposes, we can scale down the intensity by isolating skills, training slowly, exercising control, padding up, etc. In doing those things we are not totally reinventing violence because the inherent nature remains the same and hence we can scale back up to reality.

In one-steps we have totally reinvented the nature of reality. We can’t “scale back up” because nothing it teaches is relevant.

While I have seen lots of karateka, who were raised on one-steps, try to justify the practise, I have never seen any reality based martial artists from other systems look at one-steps and think it’s a good way to train. It's not something anyone would do if starting from scratch. There are way more efficient ways to practise and one-steps should be dumped. They were not a part of the karate of the past, and they should not be part of the karate of the future.

I spent over a quarter of a century practising formal one-steps and I can honestly say they taught me nothing of value. My students don’t do them and they are getting better, faster because there is no training time spent on a practise that takes them away from reality and introduces, for no good reason, false timing, false distances, false application of body mechanics, false understanding of how karate motions should be applied, and so on.

Realistic bunkai drills are an infinitely better way to go because the timing, distancing, body mechanics and application are all applicable in the real world.

Creidiki wrote:
If we can agree that formal stances and steps are horrible idea in real encounter or even sparring, but valuable teaching tool for balance, weight distribution and control of movement.

So why practise things in a way that is a “horrible idea”? We can simply go back to the way karate was praised before the abhorrent anomaly of one-steps arose i.e. do kata-based drills that teach how stances should be used in actual application (https://iainabernethy.co.uk/article/my-stance-stances).

The balance, weight distribution and control of movement of one-steps are unique to one-steps. They don’t apply to reality. However, the balance, weight distribution and control of movement of bunkai and associated drills does apply to reality. So I think we are better going with the practise that actually leads somewhere as opposed to the one that teaches nothing but unusable nonsense.

Creidiki wrote:
Using the comic analogy, Calvins dad says that you should get into real self defence encounters until you find out what works and what not. Sure enough, after enough fails you build something that works but the price is high.

I’m definitely with Cavlin’s mum. I agree the dad is giving terrible advice, but, as we have been discussing, there is the option of using true scale models. We don’t need to learn by getting into real fights, we can scale down to create training methods that will instruct us and test us in line with the nature of reality. That’s what engineers do. That’s why I feel your analogy fails because you are effectively stating one-steps are such a model. I maintain they are not because every part of them is radically different from reality. They are not a true scale model. Back to the definition of a scale model in engineering:

“To be a true scale model, all relevant aspects must be accurately modeled, such as material properties, so the model's interaction with the outside world is reliably related to the original object's interaction with the real world.”

We can certainly scale down. Real fights and unrealistic one-steps are not the only options we have. We can train in a safe “scaled down” way as we learn / test. We can train in a way where the distance, body mechanics, posture, are all relevant to reality; without making actual reality the only way to train and test.

All the best,

Iain

Leigh Simms
Leigh Simms's picture

A lot has been said in this thread since my initial lurking!

I whole-heartly agree that this kind of training needs to be replaced with a more effiecent and realistic type of training. I also agree with what Iain has said above.

I wrote a short blogpost critiquing Ippon Kumite (which the majority of training is done against oi zuki attacks) and the link can be found here: - http://www.leighsimms.com/single-post/2016/12/29/Ippon-Kumite. I hope it highlights another way of viewing the issues with training the "attack oi zuki model". The article also covers some of the other arguments for continuing this practice that haven't being mentioned here and my response to those.

Leigh

Marc
Marc's picture

Good article, Leigh. Thanks for sharing.  

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Leigh Simms wrote:
I wrote a short blogpost critiquing Ippon Kumite (which the majority of training is done against oi zuki attacks) and the link can be found here: - http://www.leighsimms.com/single-post/2016/12/29/Ippon-Kumite. I hope it highlights another way of viewing the issues with training the "attack oi zuki model". The article also covers some of the other arguments for continuing this practice that haven't being mentioned here and my response to those.

Good article Leigh! Thanks for sharing.

All the best,

Iain

Lionel Froidure
Lionel Froidure's picture

Leigh Simms wrote:

I wrote a short blogpost critiquing Ippon Kumite (which the majority of training is done against oi zuki attacks) and the link can be found here: - http://www.leighsimms.com/single-post/2016/12/29/Ippon-Kumite

Hi Leigh,

Really interesting article. Thanks for writing it. 

Lionel