8 posts / 0 new
Last post
Zach Zinn
Zach Zinn's picture
Ippon Kumite progression

We've had a number of conversations over the years about what Ippon Kumite is, or is meant to be. I made a small video of what I think should be the progression of Ippon Kumite, just a montage of a training session. Basically light pressure testing of techniques with some variation, pressure, follow through or movement following the initial punch.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Lovely video Zach! All the key components and principles clearly on display, and while moulding them to the specifics of the situation. Good stuff!

Markedly different from what most do as Ippon Kumite; where there is no demonstrable connection to the kata, and absence of cohesive principles, and where everything is sterile to the point of dead.

All the best,

Iain

PS I do like the term “sterile to the point of dead” and will be using it indiscriminately going forward :-) Quite proud of myself there.

Zach Zinn
Zach Zinn's picture

Thanks Iain. Sterile to the point of dead definitely describes most of the formal Ippon Kumite i've seen.

My theory (and it's just a theory based on observation, I have no particular evidence) is that Ippon Kumite was part of the overall format of much Karate training, which over time ossified into the demo-based "sets" we see today. A lot of people will say this happened when Karate went to mainland Japan, but trust me, as someone who has trained exclusveily in Okinawan Karate styles, there are Okinawan styles out there with some of the exact same issues - drills which have become over time more about looking a certain way than anything else. The performance becomes confused with the content or the method.

As an example of good historical "ippon kumite", we can just look at Motobu's Okinawan Kempo book, those are basically (I think)hinting at something similar to a more open form of "ippone kumite". The opponent begins with one punch, but eventually we are learning to work against a second punch, more continous attack/movement, etc. One thing that has always confounded is how little writing there seems to be on historical driling methods.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Hi Zach,

Zach Zinn wrote:
My theory (and it's just a theory based on observation, I have no particular evidence) is that Ippon Kumite was part of the overall format of much Karate training, which over time ossified into the demo-based "sets" we see today.

Zach Zinn wrote:
As an example of good historical "ippon kumite", we can just look at Motobu's Okinawan Kempo book,

I like Motobu’s drills, as he presents them in his book, because I feel they do gives us a snapshot of what some pre-3k partner drills looked like. However, when I see lots of people do them today, I feel they have had a 3K approach overlaid onto them i.e. very formal and jerky with a massively exaggerated distance. Motobu is continually within arm’s length in the book and it hard to imagine someone with his experience not practicing in a flowing way.

Zach Zinn wrote:
A lot of people will say this happened when Karate went to mainland Japan, but trust me, as someone who has trained exclusively in Okinawan Karate styles, there are Okinawan styles out there with some of the exact same issues - drills which have become over time more about looking a certain way than anything else. The performance becomes confused with the content or the method.

Yep. Okinawa is not the “land that time forgot” and the influence of 3K is present there too.

I think it is important is to consider why these strange practises developed … and I think we can find the answer in karate aping drills found in judo and kendo:

https://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/comment/16429#comment-16429

The term “ippon kumite” would seem to flow from these practises i.e. there is a need to differentiate between one-step, three-step and five-step. A less confusing, a more traditional approach, could be to drop the “ippon” and simple refer to partner drills as “kumite”. I worry that using 3k terminology to refer to a non-3K practise will muddy the waters.  

All the best,

Iain

Zach Zinn
Zach Zinn's picture

Yes, the dojos I came up in didn't use the term. However, they did have practices which I think were supposed to focus on being faster in one movement, which I think is the valid use of a "one step" kind of practice. A couple of my students come from Wado Ryu, so as an example, the Ippon Kumite movements from Wado appear to me to have some real utility, at least some of them. They've just been practiced in such a bizarre, ceremonial way as to render them useless, perhaps partially because there is no thought to the opponents second attack or action. Was this your experience, or do you think their content was useless as well?

I ask because the only comparison I have is what we used to call two-man "short forms" that I learned from my first Dojo in the 80s and 90s (Shorin Ryu). Later in life my father and I (he has been one of my Karate teachers) discovered that about half these techniques were actually quite good, we were just doing them in such an unrealistic manner that we were unable to see their use. once we shortened the distance, added in realistic attacks or continuity of practice there was value there. I realize Japanese Karate has a whole separate set of influences though, and I may be underestimating those based on my experience.

You are probably right that it's best not to use the term, we refer to it informally as "entries" or something similar.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Hi Zach,

Zach Zinn wrote:
A couple of my students come from Wado Ryu, so as an example, the Ippon Kumite movements from Wado appear to me to have some real utility, at least some of them. They've just been practiced in such a bizarre, ceremonial way as to render them useless, perhaps partially because there is no thought to the opponents second attack or action. Was this your experience, or do you think their content was useless as well?

As with all styles, there are many Wados. In terms of direct experience, I can only talk about the version practised in Europe; which has a heavy secondary influence from Tatsuo Suzuki. He created 12 Ippon Kumite (6 punch defences and 6 kick defences) which are widely practised. The kick ones are simple and solid enough from a consensual violence perspective (emphasis on evasion / body shifting). The punch ones suffer from the same issues we see with Ippon Kumite generally i.e. people freeze framing, hands on hips for no reason, very formal attacks, exaggerated distance, etc. These 12 one-steps also form the basis of the three-steps and five-steps i.e. retreat in a straight line two or four times, and then react on the third or fifth. There are obviously huge problems with all of those. My guess is that these are not what you are talking about though. I would wager it’s the “Kihon Kumite” your referencing. These are two-person drills made by Otsuka that are essentially a blend of his Yoshin Shindo-Ryu Jujutsu and Motobu’s drills (Motobu being one of Otsuka’s teachers; and if you know both sets, as I do, the commonality of some elements is obvious).

There’s some variation as you move from group to group, but the Kihon Kumite are pretty consistent across the piece. I once found myself in a Wado dojo in Japan and we did Kihon Kumite 1 to 10. The versions I learnt in Northern England were almost identical (turns out the chief instructor there trained alongside my instructor’s instructor). My view is they do teach some interesting ideas; particularly when it comes to evasion and simultaneous action. The joint-locking and throws are also interesting. However, I would fully agree with your observation that they are overly “ceremonial” and rigid in the way they are practised. Most of them do contain more than one action from the enemy, so there is a consideration of a secondary action … however, it tends to be a specific and pre-determined action.

My teacher dropped the three and five steps; so, I was never subjected to those. I did learn the Ippons (both traditional and my own Instructor’s variations; which where better), but I dropped them when all when I went independent. The 10 Kihon Kumite we still do; not so much for their functional use though. Sure, there are ideas presented that can be built on, but I can concerns about the format. However, they are part of our heritage and students find them interesting … so it’s more for art and historical interest. We don’t devote much time to them (1% of training time, tops), and the higher grades normally have a couple to do for each grading. So, over the years, they pick them all up.

The vast majority of our pair work is, unsurprisingly, bunkai based. We also have a series of drills for the consensual violence side of things too. All of which progress from set examples to free-flowing live application. These archive our goals more efficiently than the above.

All the best,

Iain

Zach Zinn
Zach Zinn's picture

Thanks for the explanation Iain. I've had similar experiences to your own I think, only with Okinawan stuff, relating to the Shobu Shoreikan syllabus..which was more full of unrealistic "flow drills" than unrealistic ippon kumites. Both my first Goju Ryu teacher and Kris eventually moved away from all the drills and went straight to the application, and I've tried to follow suit. We also had superflous kata that I cut out, quite a few of them.

Sometimes it's amazing to me that I spent time on drills like this at onet iem - with no discernible combative value, here's an example of the sort of drill we used to do:

 

It's a "flow" drill, but the issues are the same as with the Ippons etc.back and forth movement, completely artificial timing, waiting for the opponent to do stuff, no real use of angles. I often ponder what the purpose of these drills was supposed to be. To me they just seem to be demos made to look interesting. There was some ok content if you took out small bits and focused on those.

It's interesting because I have  a reflexive reaction to Karate "flow drills" now. I don't practice sequences of more than three techniques with a partner, and I feel like the most useful "flow" is found in  non scripted work. Fascinating how the stuff we end up dropping can determine the direction of our study in some ways.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Hi Zach,

Like so much in the martial arts, a lot comes down to the definition of “flow drill”.

To me, “flow” is always, “the management of failure”. We want to end things with the first motion, but if that fails then we need to maintain the initiative and flow to the next one. Flow is never desirable in and of itself though – i.e. we don’t seek flow; it’s something forced upon us – because it necessitates methods failing to come into play.  

Do we want flow? No, we want methods to work so flow is not needed.

Do we need to know how to flow? Yes, in case methods don’t work.

Because the whole point of flow is maintaining the initiative should a primary method fail, I’m not a big fan of back and forth “flow drills”. They can be good for the rapid practise of a give technique, but the tactic and mindset is all wrong; so they have to be used sparingly and always in context.

Zach Zinn wrote:
It's a "flow" drill, but the issues are the same as with the Ippons etc.back and forth movement, completely artificial timing, waiting for the opponent to do stuff, no real use of angles.

I share your concerns there.

Zach Zinn wrote:
It's interesting because I have a reflexive reaction to Karate "flow drills" now. I don't practice sequences of more than three techniques with a partner …

I see value in longer “one-way” flow drills. Like all drills, they need to be understood as part of a wider training matrix, and when isolated from that matrix there will obviously be uncorrected faults we can point to. However, they can be good for time efficient practise of given theme, and they can be fun and motivating too. I have reservations about longer back and forth drills, and all of them should never be mistaken for a technique, combination, or representation of an actual exchange.

Zach Zinn wrote:
… I feel like the most useful "flow" is found in non scripted work.

100%. The set drills can give example and illustrate ideas, but “set flow” isn’t true flow and we need live and semi-live drills for that.

All the best,

Iain