Different Shotokan Schools
Roland Rau
I am a beginner in Shotokan Karate (and in martial arts in general) and
I would be curious what the differences are between the various shotokan
'schools' like SKA ('my' school), JKA, ...? And what are the reasons for
the different directions since (as far as I know) all started with
Funakoshi's teachings.
I hope this is the right forum to ask this question and hopefully it is
not a classic reason for a flamewar (as happens so often in other usenet
newsgroups when a newbie asks a question).
Thank you very much,
Roland
Simon Slavin
<ftle9g$1to$1...@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu>:
> I am a beginner in Shotokan Karate (and in martial arts in general) and
> I would be curious what the differences are between the various shotokan
> 'schools' like SKA ('my' school), JKA, ...?
You say you're a beginner in Shotokan which implies you have not had a
chance to experience different styles of Karate, or different styles of
Shotokan, for yourself. It can be worth watching a couple of lessons of
different types of Karate just to see what they're right. You can get to
the point where you can identify the type of Karate just from a few
seconds of movement: low, blocky stances and linear movement versus
relaxed stances and circular fluid movements versus never-stationary
fighters who move in pin-sharp strikes then return to their original
position.
Some different 'schools' in Shotokan can look as different as Shotokan is
from, say, Wadokai. Other times Shotokan people will all look the same
since you're comparing them with, say, kick-boxers. With a little
experience you'll get a grasp of what the differences and similarities are.
> And what are the reasons for
> the different directions since (as far as I know) all started with
> Funakoshi's teachings.
Suppose Funakoshi has a student who sets up a dojo in Osaka. This student
turns out to be a good teacher and gathers a school with a Senior Student
and many other students. Another of Funakoshi's students stays in the
greater Tokyo area and does the same. Both students have good memories
for what Funakoshi taught them but they don't remember everything
perfectly, and Funakoshi didn't teach them how to react to every possible
situation. So inevitably a few tiny details of their teachings differ.
Repeat this for sixty years, which is two or three generations of
teachers, each one introducing their own variations, interpretations, and
situations. Some teachers teach karate to soldiers, others teach students
who are businessmen and others teach monks. Naturally, the things they
think worth mentioning are slightly different, and as the years pass the
teachings diverge more and more. They may all stick to Funakoshi's twenty
principles but they can all teach differently. And unless the students of
one school consistently beat the students of another there's no way to
tell which is superior.
The question you asked is a good question. I'm just sorry the answer has
to dip through about 70 years of history.
Simon.
--
http://www.hearsay.demon.co.uk
Tanel Kagan
in message news:fu0i45$6td$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
Some valid points Simon, but actually one "advantage" that Shotokan has over
some other martial arts is that Funakoshi was an educated man who was able
to write down and record his teachings. He died as recently as 1957 and
posthumously these records have been translated and published. It is not
difficult to go "direct to the source" with Shotokan if one wishes to learn
the principles behind it, cutting out the "middlemen" so to speak.
Similarly some other martial arts, such as Tai-Chi and some forms of Kung
Fu, for example, were practiced by the royal houses in China, the military,
or at the Shaolin Temples, and there is extensive historical record of these
styles.
You might contrast this with Wing Tsun, for example, which depending on
which version of the legend you believe, was a system which developed
underground as part of the resistance movement against the imperial dynasty,
and as a result little in terms of early documentation exists. Rather the
system was passed purely by way of oral teaching.
But I think the real answer is politics. If we are talking about
differences between *associations* then I believe the differences are
cosmetic at best.
Martial arts have progressed (or should we say "regressed"?) from being a
valuable gift which is passed from one person to the next, in which not only
methods of combat but important traditional values are instilled in the
student, to a commercially exploitable asset. I'm going off on a tangent
slightly but these days people think that because they are the paying
customer, they have a right to learn this that or the other, they want it
quickly and they don't necessarily appreciate the implications of what they
are learning.
Once upon a time, a student may not have paid for his classes with money, he
may have washed his Sensei/Si-Fu's clothes, cooked his meals, or cleaned the
Dojo. He lived and breathed his martial art and a bond between Master and
Student was more than a business deal.
If we get back to basics with our martial art, whichever it may be, we may
truly appreciate and understand it, regardless of whether we're members of
the JKA, ISKA, KUGB or whatever else. Politics results in associations
because someone somewhere thinks he knows best and has the right to be
considered as the best. Of course someone else disagrees and two
associations are born. The beginner is then faced with having to make an
arbitrary choice because he's told that Association A won't recognise
Association B's grades and so on. Rather a student being told that he
should learn the principles and techniques, listen to many sources of wisdom
and then think for himself as to how those principles and techniques can be
applied to make him a better martial artist, he is told that you do it "our
way" or the "high way".
Sure, it isn't always that bad, but often it is, so Roland, I say don't
worry about which association you're with or whether someone is doing it
different to you or supposedly doing it better. Worry about whether you are
learning not just the "what", and the "how", but the "why". I don't believe
that any system is perfect, because humans aren't perfect. Instead each of
us learns a little something different which makes us unique as martial
artists as we are as individuals.
Tanel.
David O'Daniel
reasons. 1. the assumption that the farther back in history, the greater
was the understanding of fighting or almost anything in general.
Arguably, what came out of actual war & combat would result in such
understanding that would create superior theories of better combat. 2.
that over time, such styles (technical & theories behind them) would go
through more actual testing, esp if that testing is from again, actual
war & other life & death combat that each generation may encounter. They
are somewhat contradictory in that if the original came from a superior
mind that created it from a greater understanding, then change would
corrupt it and the Original version would always be magically superior
to anything new. While if improvements over longer time is true; as some
things are found to work and other things are found not to work, the
greater improvement-based changed version would be the better. (Note,
change for the sake of change, is almost never improvement; they did it
left down so I'll hit right up, no reason besides change).
Never stop learning, never assume that the one way that you currently
understand some kata or any theory, aspect or technique, is the only way
or that neither assume the 1 way is of no value (the grass is always
greener, thinking), while exploring other branches, other input,
versions, sources, etc. The tendency to assume the "latest thing" you
see is better. Taikyoku Shodan or any kata is full of potential training
& insight that most never find because they are too busy looking toward
getting equally bored with their next learned kata.
Other changes of less value are where a teacher has forgotten something
or didn't fully pay attention when they were learning OR were never
fully taught something, IF their teachers had known the "correct
original way", and then just makes up something. Or accidentally does
the wrong move or mis-speaks and rather than admitting to correct a
mistake, will then perpetually do the accidental change as the new
"correct way". Changes, accidental or based on some well-thought-out
reasoning & personal experience, can indeed either potentially weaken
from the original style OR may indeed be an improvement. Some accidental
way of moving may result in some new insight; like turning the wrong way
& finding a great spot in the woods with a waterfall, that no one else
had ever seen because they all stayed on the path & never would have
turned that way on purpose. Such accidental insights tend to be rarely
useful though & more often are just mistakes & wrong turns. Perhaps one
should always keep in sight of and aware of the main road well-traveled,
as it were, whenever exploring off road. ;-)
Infinite outward (astronomic) and infinite inward (sub-atomic) within
what we "think" that we already know.
Bo
Simon Slavin
10...@storefull-3231.bay.webtv.net>:
> They
> are somewhat contradictory in that if the original came from a superior
> mind that created it from a greater understanding, then change would
> corrupt it and the Original version would always be magically superior
> to anything new. While if improvements over longer time is true; as some
> things are found to work and other things are found not to work, the
> greater improvement-based changed version would be the better.
This is one of the problems with modern martial arts. It used to be easy
to figure out which art (or school within an art) was superior: put a
bunch of students from one school up against a bunch of students from
another school, and see which group wins and takes over the Dojo of the
losing school.
We can no longer do this between martial arts because different arts have
different definitions of what counts as a win or loss. A Taekwando kick
that would win a match would be illegal in Karate because it would be too
dangerous. However, a Karate punch that would disable a Taekwando fighter
would be ineffective if the Karate fighter wore TKW gloves.
Between schools of a different MA is a different matter: it happens all
the time in national and international championships. And the results are
that (a) no particular school wins and (b) the rules for cross-school
combat are disliked by all the member schools, who all consider their own
rules superior. For a really frustrating time, watch a Wadokai pupil
fight a Shotokan pupil. Both are annoyed that their clearly superior
skills are not appreciated.
So since we never accept one school as having definitively won the inter-
school competition we're going to always end up with multiple styles. But
this gives us valuable diversity, cross-polination of ideas, and helps to
give us something to fight about.
Simon.
--
http://www.hearsay.demon.co.uk
David O'Daniel
"This is one of the problems with modern martial arts. It used to be
easy to figure out which art (or school within an art) was superior: put
a bunch of students from one school up against a bunch of students from
another school, and see which group wins and takes over the Dojo of the
losing school.
We can no longer do this between martial arts because different arts
have different definitions of what counts as a win or loss. A Taekwando
kick that would win a match would be illegal in Karate because it would
be too dangerous. However, a Karate punch that would disable a Taekwando
fighter would be ineffective if the Karate fighter wore TKW gloves.
Between schools of a different MA is a different matter: it happens all
the time in national and international championships. And the results
are that (a) no particular school wins and (b) the rules for
cross-school combat are disliked by all the member schools, who all
consider their own rules superior. For a really frustrating time, watch
a Wadokai pupil fight a Shotokan pupil. Both are annoyed that their
clearly superior skills are not appreciated.
So since we never accept one school as having definitively won the
inter- school competition we're going to always end up with multiple
styles. But this gives us valuable diversity, cross-polination of ideas,
and helps to give us something to fight about.
Simon."
<Bo>: As far as I'm aware, there are no TKD kicks illegal in karate. TKD
& Koreans in general tend to have the restrictive rules. Some karate
styles still have kicking to the groin as a target & others, legs even.
I'm not sure if it is all the lower body or at least to avoid directly
kicking the knee, that could end careers). Still, TKD is always no
kicking to groin or below belt, some with no hand techniques to the face
(the utterly ridiculous unrealistic rule that is a red flag that
something is a sport & NOT a real-fight street/combat practical "martial
art".
I suppose that some Shotokan & other karate styles may have also adopted
the no-face punching. At which point, they are a Sportive art, not a
martial art (martial, Mars the Roman god of WAR, hence fighting/combat
art), for any who had wondered where the term "martial" came from. Now,
not that sport is bad, baseball players make more in a game than almost
any martial artist may make in a year. All the parents wanting their
little kid to do a sport that sigh them up for karate or whatever,
different reasoning for taking it. For sport, which is "better" I
suppose is which you have the most fun at. Which is better for fighting
or defending yourself though, arguably is not as likely going to be the
one that plays dodge ball in leu of sparring. The best combat style may
not have the aerobics that others are looking for who are taking it as a
form of exercise & fitness (though depending on the style, school &
teacher; martial arts is one of the best overall fitness activities, 2nd
only to gymnastics & maybe swimming in working the whole body & in all
aspects of fitness; speed, strength, endurance, coordination, etc).
Bo