One of my training brothers shared this article and made some comments about it. I went over to the site and after reading the article, I could only agree with his statements. I’ll get to that at the end here, but first, go read the article. It’s not that long.
There are a couple of minor issues I see here and a fundamental problem. Let’s start with the issues.
- Slow practice is no secret. In fact, it’s a fundamental training methodology, both inside and outside of martial arts. In pretty much every sport or activity, you learn a new skill or technique slowly to get basic competence in it. Once you have that, you add speed, power and other aspects. Typically, when you want to correct errors, you slow it down again to figure out what’s wrong. Once you do, you go faster again. Granted, only a limited amount of martial arts make it a big part of their training, but this has been known for a long time. I really don’t see the secret here.
- Slow isn’t always possible. I’m going to take an extreme example to make this point: take a look at this kick. How exactly can you practice this slowly? I don’t see how you can pull that off. I’m no karate expert, but I’ve seen more than one jumping technique in their forms. I’ve also seen them do many less extreme movements that require some form of dynamic balance, which makes it impossible to do them (correctly) at anything other than speed. For instance, try to do this type of footwork at a slow pace and still bounce.
- There’s also “too slow”. In the article, the author suggests taking 2 minutes to perform one front kick. In my experience, that’s way too slow to train the kick correctly. At that pace, you’re mainly working the stabilizer muscles, which has a lot of value. But there are better ways to train those for 2 minutes than to insist on performing that front kick at the same time. More about that in a bit.
- Not all TCMAs are the same. This is a minor quibble, but it needs to be addressed because it is factually incorrect. The author writes: “Slowness is vital in TCMA (Traditional Chinese Martial Arts), the historical progenitor of Karate.” I’m not going to touch the “progenitor” part, but as for TCMAs, that’s simply not true. There are hundreds of different styles and only in a handful (those that are considered “internal”) is slow practice a vital part of the training.
All in all, these points aren’t all that important to the main issue. Primarily because we can argue about them and there are all sorts of conditions that apply. So I’m not going to belabor the point. I am going to address the fundamental problem with the assumption that slow training is going to “Improve Your Karate Like Crazy.”
So what is the main problem?
Not all body mechanics are the same.
There are fundamental differences between the body mechanics of one style as opposed to the other. These differences tend to increase when a system adds certain elements that are not present in the other style. The more elements of these there are, the bigger the effects on the body mechanics involved. This goes on until the point of no return. Meaning, at a certain point, systems become incompatible with other systems.
I know some people don’t agree with this. I know some think “a punch is just a punch”. Personally, I think that’s nonsense only those with limited training and understanding believe. As always, the differences are just as important as the similarities.
Here’s why.
There is an entire field of science called analytical dynamics that studies the key to understanding this problem: how bodies in motion behave and the forces that act upon them. If you start looking into the physics involved, it gets incredibly complicated very fast. I’m not going to bore you with the details, but the point is that a small change, like reducing speed of motion, can have a huge effect on all the other parameters with enormous consequences as a result. Remember that bouncing footwork I mentioned? You can’t do it slowly and still bounce. You can try to mimic all the components when you go slow but the body mechanics involved are fundamentally different: there will no longer be a pre-loading of certain leg muscles, using their elastic properties for the concentric contraction. Simply because there is no longer enough speed to create the forces that generate that effect. As a result of that, there is not such a large degree of dynamic balance needed to perform the footwork correctly.
In short, the footwork is radically different from a body mechanics point of view than when you do it at normal speed. This applies to all other movements as well. E.g.: some karate footwork and techniques require you to keep your spine vertical. This cannot be done slowly without shoving off one leg or by leaning forward to shift weight. If you do that slowly, you either fundamentally mess up the internal mechanics or incline the spine away from that vertical position. As a result, you change the body dynamics and what you do slowly does not correspond to what you do fast.
One of the big giveaways regarding this is in the original article:
“When you slow down, you’ll notice other things too – like excessive force/tension.”
Given the body’s tendency to counterweight/counterbalance itself when you move slowly, the tension patterns are inherently different from when you move fast. So it’s no surprise that you’ll feel excessive tension in certain areas: you’re requiring muscles to work in a way they don’t need to when you do it fast. Here’s an example of that:
?t=1m35s
At 1min34, I show a lead leg skipping side kick. There is no way to do this kick (as I show it here) slowly.
None.
It doesn’t exist.
The position of my upper body combined with the skip step creates forward momentum. The degree of lean in my spine (as little as possible) creates a long lever with my extended leg and pulls me off balance if I do this slowly. The only way to compensate is to lean away from the kick with your upper body, as I demonstrate in the “barrel roll”. Nothing wrong with that if you want to train the stabilizer muscles, but that’s not how you do the kick.
The way to practice that kick involves my joints and muscles acting as different classes of levers (primarily, 3rd instead of 1st) than if you do it slowly and use counterweight. And all this simply because you slow the kick down…
It isn’t just with kicks either, similar things happen with footwork, punches, blocks, etc.
Conclusion
Adding vital components from other styles (practicing slowly) without having enough training in that style to understand the reasons why that component is there to begin with can lead to big problems. Without having the knowledge and understanding to judge how adding that component will change your system, you just might end up breaking it. That’s me saying this after more than 17 years of practicing and teaching Tai Chi Chuan (one of those styles in which slow training is critical) while still training in “external” arts and combat sports. I think I’m entitled to my opinion…
Instead of simply adding the slowness to my art, I would ask the question: why did the founder or previous teachers not put that component in there?
There just might be a good reason for that…
My whole point is this:
Training slowly isn’t per definition a bad thing. But neither should you assume that it is automatically a positive addition to your training because it is vital in other arts.
Everything depends on the system you practice. It might overlap with those other systems, it might not. Certain elements might be compatible, others not so much. I’ve had tons of practitioners of Japanese arts come to my Tai Chi Chuan class and they almost without exception have an incredibly hard time adjusting to the body mechanics. It’s come to the point that I consider most practitioners of those arts ruined for the Tai Chi Chuan I practice. So when I read this in the original article, I think it’s only normal that the students can’t do it:
“for instance when I tell students to perform a kata slower (if only 50% slower). Their mind panics and their whole body starts screaming to go faster! Generally, they can do it for a few minutes but then it becomes “torture”.”
Perhaps that form was never meant to be performed slowly.
Perhaps it would be more interesting to first study an art that makes slow practice a vital part of its training.
Resources
Here’s some additional information about some of the topics I touched upon in this article.
- Power/Control. My video about conditioning and body mechanics.
- Introduction to Analytical Dynamics. A very dry book on this topic.
- Gold Medal Physics: The Science of Sports. An easy read on the physics involved in several sports.
william says
Hi Wim,
I have to disagree, slow zombies are preferred than fast ones, just ask Brad Pitt
Cheers
Wim says
I stand corrected…
Dennis Dilday says
Interesting! It would be fun to read your thoughts on this via more examples. The way you break things down generates lots of collateral thinking processes. And in this area is would be a fun read… I don’t know how much fun it would be for you to write; or whether there is much interest on the part of others, but it’s a thought:-)
Wim says
Dunno Dennis, it’d probably be a lot of work and end up with me beating the dead horse so much it would come back from the dead as a zombie. :-)
But here’s an easy one: every technique that uses the drop step cannot be practiced slowly and still mimic the technique as its done at full speed.
The same goes for most kinds of footwork that don’t have the full/empty leg transitions like we do. Given as they always have a fair amount of weight on both legs, they always have to shove off and therefor slow won’t work without creating artifacts.
Old Bull Lee says
Interesting that so much of the discussion is about muscle tension.
Slow training provides a huge benefit in my system. Learning to relax and eliminate unnecessary tension is one reason.
However the primary reason is the refinement of proper skeletal alignment, which eliminates much of the need for muscle tension, and lets your body weight in motion provide more power.
Wim says
I specifically stayed away from that to make my point: the original article mentioned nothing of the many underlying reasons why tai chi chuan and a few other arts train slowly. It only mentioned some basic things and even those were not very accurate, making it useless to dig deeper.
Dennis Dilday says
Wim,
Since you mentioned it, I have never been clear what the Drop Step is. Would you mind elaborating?
DD
Wim says
Try this for a basic intro:
http://youtu.be/pAgwQwtwT8c
Eric Parsons says
I can’t really speak for the styles from the Shuri-te branch of karate, but Sanchin Kata (which is practiced slowly) is one of the core training elements of the Naha-te styles. I believe the style that Jesse practices contains Naha-te elements (as well as Shuri-te elements), so I would guess that slow training is an important part of their training regimen. However, it’s also true that many modern karate styles have moved away from the more traditional Okinawan body mechanics, so slow training might not be as good of a fit there. In the end, it goes back to your main point – whether or not slow practice is beneficial is context dependent.
Eric
Wim says
Eric,
I know of Sanschin, but here’s the thing: it is vastly different from what you se in the “internal” Chinese arts he mentioned. Also, how many of the other katas or parts of the curriculum (in Goju or other styles) are traditionally done slowly? Honest question.
Eric Parsons says
Wim,
I agree that Sanchin is quite a bit different from the internal Chinese arts like tai chi and bagua (at least based on my limited knowledge of them), although I’d love to hear more of your thoughts on the matter. Also, from my understanding, Sanchin is derived from the Chinese form Sam Chien, which I believe is most common in the crane systems. In fact, I remember seeing a video a while ago that showed two Chinese practitioners performing their versions of Sam Chien, followed by two Okinawan practitioners performing their versions of Sanchin. Interesting stuff.
As for what portion of the curriculum is traditionally done slowly, it somewhat depends on how one defines “traditionally”. There are plenty of “traditional” Goju-ryu schools that have largely de-emphasized Sanchin and don’t do much slow practice at all. However, originally Sanchin was the only form learned by Naha-te students for the first 1-2 years of practice (sometimes longer), and most students generally only learned 2-4 forms total – Sanchin + 1-3 forms chosen specifically for the student by the instructor. As such, I personally feel like the structure and body mechanics of Sanchin are meant to permeate one’s entire practice. For example, I’ve heard Kris Wilder reply when asked about what applications can be found in Sanchin, “Don’t look for applications in your Sanchin. Look for Sanchin in your applications.” With that in mind, if Sanchin is given the focus that i believe was the original intent, I do think that it (and, as a result, slow practice) should make up a significant fraction of one’s training in the Naha-te branches of karate.
Great discussion, by the way!
Eric
Wim says
Eric,
I reviewed Kris’s video a while ago and we talked about this topic a bit a bit when we met a few years ago. BTW, this is the video you were referring to. I know it has its roots in crane systems, but these are typically not considered as part of the “internal” styles.
What Kris said is what the Chinese call Shen fa, which means”body method” in a crude translations. We might use “body mechanics”. This is taught in a specific way in traditional arts and it’s usually all connected. Here’s the thing:
– Goju has a dozen or so forms, right? To the best of my knowledge, Sanchin is the only one deliberately done at a slow pace. The other ones, not, correct? Why would that be?
– All tai chi styles spend a great amount of time and effort doing all of their forms slowly. Some styles have fast(er) forms too, but the slow practice i a hallmark of training, not the exception. Why would that be?
Take both these things together and you see the differences. My point was that simply saying “do it slowly and you’ll be awesome” is a yes/no/maybe approach. Why aren’t you taught to do them slowly from the get go? Why is it not an integral part of your training? Why only Sanchin and not the rest? IMO, answering those questions is where the key to understanding is. I believe simply copying things from other styles without training and understanding in those styles is a recipe for failure. Kind of like adding an F1 spoiler to a small Toyota “because that’s what makes those cars go so fast.” In real life, it isn’t that easy.
That said, to each his own. IF people want to mix and match, that’s their choice. I just wanted to caution against blanket addition of anything that looks cool. You can actually break systems that way.
Eric Parsons says
Wim,
I think we’re largely in agreement here. I’m with you that slow practice may or may not be an optimal training method, depending on the specifics of one’s style, school, etc. I also agree that the internal Chinese arts (once again, given my limited knowledge of them) emphasize slow practice much more than traditional karate and largely towards different ends. And I certainly agree that mixing and matching can be dangerous if one doesn’t have a good understanding of the component pieces.
I guess the main point I was trying to make originally is that I believe slow training (of a specific nature) is meant to play a bigger role in traditional karate training than is often noted. Granted of the 12 core Goju-ryu forms, only two (Sanchin and Tensho) are deliberately done at a slow pace (although others have slow segments). However, students learning all 12 forms as part of their training is a relatively modern development (2nd half of the 20th century). Back when karate students generally only learned a few forms, then slow training of the type present in Sanchin would have made up at least 1/3 of a student’s form training overall and would have dominated their early training. Sanchin-focused training has certainly waned in modern times, but I feel that is largely the result of a change in the training goals (competition, business concerns, etc.) rather than a reassessment of what types of training are optimal to achieve the skills that the original practitioners of the styles were hoping to develop. For example, would it be fair to say that tai chi training methods (on average) have changed in recent decades as the focus of many classes have shifted towards health-related goals rather than combative-related goals? (Honest question, not presuming :) )
Also, I just want to say that I am enjoying this discussion. I only have smattering of exposure to the internal Chinese arts (a tiny, tiny bit of tai chi and bagua), so it is great to get your thoughts on the matter.
All the best,
Eric
Wim says
Hi Eric,
Thanks for the additional info, much appreciated.
I understand your point, but I don’t think it totally applies here. The parts those modern tai chi styles are leaving out are not the slow parts. In fact, they typically do nothing but slow practice. Nor are they borrowing components from other styles, they’re just dropping parts from the original curriculum and focus on about 20-30% of it, pretending the rest doesn’t exist or is no longer necessary. As a result, their skills and understanding are very limited.
That said, I took Goju because it’s one of the few styles I know about that has a slow kata like Sanchin. Let’s broaden it up to all karate styles, because that’s what the article implied (it did not say “only Goju”, I focused on it just as an example.):
Of all the styles, how many of them have a slow kata in their curriculum?
Of all those, what is the percentage of slow vs. fast katas?
I’m pretty confident the numbers will be low on both counts when we look at karate as a whole, even through the traditional vs modern methods filter. Like I said before: why is that? Contrast that with the internal arts in which “slow” is the main thing.
Now had Jesse not made that comparison with Chinese internal arts, I wouldn’t have thought it a big deal. There’s nothing wrong with slowing down your training, it’s a great idea. But taking 2min to throw a front kick is nonsense. There’s also “too slow”, which is something you also learn in Chinese internal arts. When somebody asks my teacher how fast or slow they should practice, he often replies with “zhong yong”, which is a reference to Confuscianism and in this case you can interpret as “not too fast, not too slow.” Just how fast that is depends on lots of factors, factors you learn through training. When looking at all those factors, from my experience, I see no value of taking 2min. to do a technique. It’s taking a valid concept too far. Which was my point.
Had he written: 3-5-10-20-30sec. I could have gotten behind that. It makes sense given the body mechanics involved (see the examples I gave.)
Anyway, it’s not a big deal to me. I don’t practice karate. So everybody can think I’m full of it and disregard all this. That’s OK with me. :-)
I see discussion as an exchange of ideas. It’s not about who’s right. The value is in the exchange. So thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Eric Parsons says
Wim,
Regarding my tai chi analogy, I feel that much of modern karate has done something similar, just in the opposite direction – dropping portions of the original curriculum so that all that remains is fast/hard practice, leading to limited skills and understanding. Now, it could certainly be argued that both styles trimmed the pieces considered unnecessary, keeping their core (tai chi = slow, karate = fast), but in karate’s case, I don’t feel the evolution was that informed. (This is not to say that karate is only meant to be done slowly. Just that I believe slow, Sanchin-like practice should be at least a portion of one’s karate training. Of course, modern karate has also done a lot of “borrowing” from other styles, muddying the waters even more.)
As for which karate styles have a slow form in their curriculum, of the two main extant branches of karate (Shuri-te and Naha-te), all of the Naha-te styles *should* teach Sanchin, as they all trace their lineage back to Kanryo Higashionna who taught Sanchin as a key element of his training method.
And I agree that a two-minute kick is a balance drill, not a kicking drill. (And, of course, there are no kicks in Sanchin Kata to begin with. :) )
All the best,
Eric
Wim says
Thanks for the info Eric, much appreciated.