Talk:Sanchin

Different schools

I would like to see a complete description of the kata as practiced by different schools. this allows for more historical reference, would others consider this clutter?

24.195.60.53 11:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you offering to do it or are you asking someone else to? JFD 13:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I started doing it. I'll have a look around and see if we can get some video links so that people can have a look. Bakarocket 16:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

What is needed is actual references to different styles' version which may then allow separate sections. For example, below is a long description of one style's form of "shime" which is shared by two other major styles. So what is the point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDoctorX (talk • contribs) 06:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

References

I noticed the article has a lack of written references. Can someone recommend the best book written on the practice of Sanchin? Thanks.--Ickesshadow (talk) 18:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Here are two sources [1] [2]. If I have time, I'll do this myself.--3family6 (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Another person has complained about the references. The current ones are separate articles. There are multiple other references one could add if "specific" objections are made. Happy to add them, but I do not wish to waste my time if that is not the problem.TheDoctorX (talk) 01:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

[Moved from @Mountaincirque: talk page]] [Moved to proper section.]

Goeth thou to the TALK page for Sanchin to raise specific objections with regards to references. The articles linked are different and, for that magazine, not at all terrible. Nevertheless, there are other published references available which can be added IF you specify WHAT claims you feel the articles fail to support. TheDoctorX (talk) 01:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC) @TheDoctorX:

I really don't like your tone, especially USING CAPS. I made the revert in good faith, the page had been tagged as requiring a ref improve for two years and by adding one very poor reference (no publisher, no URL, no page number) for one section of the article that did not in my opinion result in the article not requiring better referencing. For instance the lead of the article uses the Black Belt magazine reference, having reviewed that it makes no mention whatsoever of Tam Hon, Ang Lian-Huat or the details on the use of nukite zuki or Goju ryu. Basically, it is a mass of original research loosely associated to one decent reference (bizarrely also it is repeat referenced multiple times which should be corrected). The whole thing needs a re-write based on that one source as the rest is unreliable. As for the section on shime, who knows whether that reference is correct as it is so sparse and of little use to those who don't want to google the book and spend time trawling through for themselves. I'm happy to go through and use .

I would argue that you are the one that needed to go to the talk page to justify why the very minor information you added justified the removal of a long-standing tag on the article. All in all, I'm unsure why you are so adamant that this article is perfect as it is. I'm sure there are many references around for this well-known kata which is prominent in shito-ryu and shukokai as well as the styles mentioned here without reference (Uechi ryu aside). Having ref improve tags makes it more likely that editors stopping by will improve this article, making it more useful for everyone. Mountain^cirque 13:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Additional note: I am moving this discussion to the talk page as you suggest, in the hope that others will contribute to reviewing the content, reference accuracy and general improvements to this article.Mountain^cirque 13:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

They can start, as I had, by removing a violation of copyright this individual posted.

As for the rest, I wrote my response to his screed on his TALK page.TheDoctorX (talk) 14:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not here for an edit war and won't be making further edits as I'm sure you will revert, the contributions I made today were perfectly reasonable, you have reverted to the references that do not note the page numbers and are not entered in the correct format, also they are entered multiple times for the same sentence. Can you explain how scribd violates copyright? The only article I can find on that is a dropped court case in 2010([3]) Your response on my talk page seemed to be:
"Absent remains any specifics requested. I suppose it is hard it is to pick up a book and read it; nevertheless, linking to a page that violates copyright remains unhelpful as is the rest of your screed."

My comments on the quality of this page were not personal to you, you asked me what claims the article failed to support and I responded. I come from a shito-ryu background and know these kata well, the article does not portray them properly and is very slanted to Uechi-ryu, I had hoped to move the page and debate into a place where the content could be more rounded. Mountain^cirque 15:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

1. I refer the readers to the manner in which this individual made simple invitation "personal" and his subsequent rhetoric.

2. Violation of copyright is not "perfectly reasonable."

3. Violation of copyright is not "perfectly reasonable."

4. Now that he has invented a complaint of "slant" I can only remind that he was encouraged to identify areas and, Heavens to Betsy, provide other citations. He has not.

5. HAD he read this TALK page he would have read the request for citations on how different styles use the kata.

6. Violation of copyright is not "perfectly reasonable."

That rather is that. TheDoctorX (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC) ______ Now:

1. The copyright owner of the reference did NOT give permission and has filed a complaint against that website.

2. PLEASE--see Allcaps!--would love practitioners of any style that uses this kata to add sections that are relevant. Period. TheDoctorX (talk) 18:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

This is my last post to you. This is the first argument I have had in seven years of being a regular editor and over 4000 contributions.

1. I have not made any personal attacks against you, I said I didn't like your tone which was condescending and I'm sure readers can make their own minds up on that based on the exchange above.

2. 'Violation of copyright': where to start. You provided a bare book reference with no supporting URL or page/chapter numbers, I provided one for scribd, including a specific chapter on the article topic which allows owners of documents to take down information if they do not want it online, when I posted it no such request had been made. This is not 'violation of copyright' no more than books on Google Books are a 'violation of copyright' and can also request removal (see the only other reference on the page).

You apparently seem to have insider information that (I quote: The copyright owner of the reference did NOT give permission and has filed a complaint against that website), based on this I'm presuming that you are either George Mattson or his publisher as otherwise there is entirely no way of knowing that for a fact. I think it highly unlikely that the document just happened to be removed while we are having this interaction if that is not the case, or presumably you reported the document to win this argument?

3. An example of your belligerence.

4. I identified a few starting points that were incorrect that you have chosen to completely ignore, namely: For instance the lead of the article uses the Black Belt magazine reference, having reviewed that it makes no mention whatsoever of Tam Hon, Ang Lian-Huat or the details on the use of nukite zuki or Goju ryu.

5. You didn't request citations, you said: Nevertheless, there are other published references available which can be added IF you specify WHAT claims you feel the articles fail to support. I took this to mean you would add cites for text that required cites and then responded with point #4 above. In the above section you also note: There are multiple other references one could add if "specific" objections are made. Happy to add them, but I do not wish to waste my time if that is not the problem. You seem reluctant to add references and have removed a refimprove tag without justification, much of the text in the article is either original research or is incorrectly referenced (not corroborated by the reference used).

6. An example of your belligerence.

Mountain^cirque 12:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

"Like a bloody opera singer . . . always back for her 'Final Performance!'"

--"Old Tom," Rumpole of the Bailey

1. Copyright Violation: was a copyright violation. Period. The holder has taken action against the site you linked. After "seven years" or even a few days you should know the rules of not just Wiki but, well, the United States and other relevant jurisdictions. Wiki helpfully provides a warning regarding copyright violation on pretty much every page. You should read it.

2. References: this is how it is done, son. On online and terrestrial scholarly works. Books do not always have a "url." Yet despair not, there are these things called "libraries." Or you can use this thing I hear the kids tell about called the "internets" or something where you can, like, put in titles and authors and Amazon[Tm.--Ed.] or even The Googleplex links to books where one may purchase with monetary units or--Heavens to Betsy--arrange to have a local library borrow it from another library connected through this "internets" thing.

Nevertheless, had you behaved as an adult and complied with the Kind and Measur'd in Manner and Speech request to ASK for SPECIFICS--oh noes! All caps! What about the children?!--you would have been provided with it.

You did not.

So I will not bother reading your the remainder of your temper-tantrum attempt to pretend you were not wrong and did not violate both Wiki rules and actual laws. You contributed nothing relevant otherwise and consistently refuse to do so.

This concludes this correspondence, which I did not initiate, but I terminate with satisfaction. TheDoctorX (talk) 13:28, 12 October 2016 (UTC) _________

Received a very nice "Olive Branch" from Mountain^cirque on my Talk Page, I returned it, and perhaps we can move on. I suggest deleting the above if that is allowed--or Archiving it. To quote The Captain: "What we've got here is Failure to Communicate!" That done the "spat" is really not relevant to making this a better article so if allowed it should go the way of disco.

Moving along in martial arts we are often "stuck" with less-than-good references. A very Awesome Master of Awesome may teach you something--"Grand Master Po was really drunk during the Sheep Incident."--but that is just a hearsay anecdote. Further a lot of hearsay anecdotes are crap anecdotes: "Then Grand Master Po used Sanchin to teleport!" More seriously, relevant to Sanchin the anecdote persists that a person on his death bed jumped up into a "perfect" Sanchin stance.

Dying of renal failure.

Soooo . . . I also concede this is "Uechi-Heavy" because it is sort of the base kata of the style. But it is a kata of many Okinawan based styles. So can we find a way to create sections for the differences between styles? That would be useful.

Also, if there are specific things that need reference that would help. For example, say, the differences in stance IN a style depending on performance, and between styles.

TheDoctorX (talk) 03:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Done and dusted as far as I'm concerned, thanks for returning the olive branch. Let's get back to the article, I agree with your points and will make efforts when I get time. PS I have struck through the above, I believe that is a suggested course when both parties are agreed (?). Mountain^cirque 10:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Sanchin stance

Broken link at the beginning of stance. It links back to this page to an anchor that doesn't exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youarefunny (talk • contribs) 02:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Fixed--3family6 (talk) 12:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Kyokushin "Hard Sanchin"

I'd like to add a section about Kyokushin "Hard Sanchin," as is practiced in parts of Southern California (and probably elsewhere). In this form, after the student has learned traditional Sanchin (tensed muscles, closed fists version), the next step is to perform the kata while the instructors beat on you. The theory is that a properly conditioned person will not bruise, and the stances will prevent blows to the groin, etc. (For the most part, it works, and is similar to some types of conditioning suggested by Mas Oyama in his books.) I have had a hard time finding references to this type of Sanchin on the Internet, since "Hard Sanchin" typically refers to simply the tensed version, rather than the "get beat on" version. Can anyone help find such a reference, or perhaps tell me what better search terms might be? The only one I could find was this one...and it's severely lacking, as in my experience, it's the instructors who deliver the strikes (and try to knock you over, etc.), and they do so at full force, with proper technique.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwV04ta6HE0

To my knowledge, this is still practiced at the Riverside, CA School of the Brown Bear. Dmutters (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, that describes how testing is done by a number of styles. It is not unique to Kyokushin. There is no one "right way" to test a student performing the "kata." Depends on what the teacher is trying to teach/train, the level of the student, "et cetera." Thus, in and of itself, it would not merit a separate section in my opinion. TheDoctorX (talk) 06:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)