Talk:Taikyoku

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Martial arts Portal
This page is part of the Wikipedia Martial arts Project.

Please use these guidelines and suggestions to help improve this article
if you think something is missing, please help us improve them!

You may also wish to read the project's Notability guide.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

[edit] merging

Content was merged from Taikyoku Shodan and Taikyoku shodan. Mangojuice 18:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Note: On 28 Dec 2004, Taikyoku nidan was nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Taikyoku nidan for a record of the discussion. The resulting discussion encouraged merging kata into a larger list of all Shotokan kata, but since these kata are not unique to Shotokan, it is more appropriate to discuss this set of kata as its own entity. This article avoids both problems, I hope. Mangojuice 20:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taikyoku Nidan

"The second kata of the series, taikyoku nidan, is nearly identical to taikyoku shodan, except that the punches up and down the middle are at jodan (high) level."

Just want to know if it only in shotokan karate, however we do Nidan with rising blocks except for the short turns up and down the I, not sure if i should write it as though all styles are like this or only shotokan

Well, in my system we don't do it that way. So, the question is, do any other styles do it that way, or only shotokan? Mangojuicetalk 12:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

In Karate-Do Kyohan, Funakoshi writes (p. 47), "The sequence of Taikyoku Nidan is identical to that of Shodan except that in Nidan, all punches are upper level instead of middle level attacks." So what this article describes as Shotokan Nidan is NOT what Funakoshi came up with, at least as of Karate-Do Kyohan. Funakoshi's Sandan includes a mixture of jodan and chudan punches. --Cambarus 18:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taiji

At Taiji, it says that this is the Japanese cognate of the Chinese concept... Which is clearly not the case, unless there should be another article name for this? 132.205.44.5 (talk) 03:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)