^K^ Traditional Karate is not a martial art
richardmcevoy
an email. However, IMO so called traditional Karate is not a martial art
but the dead corpse of one.
Please do not take this as a troll. It is a very serious message which IMO
needs to be considered by the traditional world. BTW this does not mean I
think that freestyle karate is any closer to the mark, if anything it is
further away.
Karate was originally a form of Chinese kempo which was imported by
individuals to Okinawa. Most modern styles (which were founded by these
individuals) owe their origins to 19th century Fuzhou systems. These
individuals were for the most part very good at what they did and some
indeed had permission to teach what they had learnt. However, the pre war
nationalistic fervour in Japan and Okinawa meant that their Karate, however
unwillingly, was adapted for the teaching of schoolchildren and soldiers.
Teaching such required that only basic methods be used and that strict
discipline be applied. Attacks and defences had to be absorbed quickly by
soldiers so set bunkai were devised. School children could not be taught
deadly attacks so kata were simplified and more deadly interpretations
dropped. Prize fighting was an illegal activity for which there might be
legal consequences for teachers so pressure points were left out. The
training process was also interrupted and many high level Karate masters
killed before their pupils completed their training so that transmissions
were interrupted.
And at the end of the war Karate was changed to a sport often by inexpert
tutors.
The end result of these trends was that Karate unlike Kung Fu has the
following traits.
1. Blocks and counters are separate movements with no flow between them.
And attacks are separated instead of having simultaneous high and low or
left and right.
2. Applications are taught in a set manner instead of being developed on a
personal basis.
3. There is no connection between sports sparring and kata moves or kata
moves and self defence. In Chinese systems, the kata moves are also the
sports moves and are also the self defence moves.
4. Chinese conditioning methods are either not used or have been corrupted
to the point of being dangerous to the practitoner (e.g. Sanchin)
5. Chinese body dynamics have disappeared
6. Chinese strategic and tactical systems have been replaced by Japanese
based ones which are inappropriate to the techniques being used.
7. Grappling, throwing, groundwork and weaponry are left out of supposedly
sufficient systems and the only striking tools encouraged are the mid range
straight punch (easily blocked), the back fist and a variety of high kicks
(even easier blocked and very risky unless one is extremely athletic in a
real fight)
I could go on and on. However, the point is that Karate has almost
completely lost touch with its Chinese origins and been further corrupted by
its sports orientation. It has reached the point where it has ceased to be
a martial art. Let's put it another way.
1. What martial art aimed at training people to fight would leave out vital
area striking, grappling, groundwork and weapons from its syllabus ?
2. What martial art would train in form one way but always fight in a
different way ? EVen boxers shadow spar with the moves they would use.
3. What martial art would encourage its participants to move in a stiff
wooden fashion, practically immobilising hands and feet relative to fighting
speed ?
4. and encourage increasing power to be driven through rigidified joints
shocking them into arthritic uselessness?
5. What martial art would encourage its students to become clones of one
another instead of developing their individual strengths and weaknesses ?
(even sports karateka know better than that)
6. What martial art would concentrate solely on one conditioning method
(local muscle stamina ie. press ups, sit ups etc) and ignore weights,
aerobic and cardiovascular training, flexibility not to mention traditional
Chinese methods from which it originally derived?
As you see, I could go on and on and on and on and on. But I won't. In one
sense there is nothing wrong with Trad Karate. i.e. the kata do contain
everything needed to be a martial artist but they are performed in such a
simplified and childish way that it is very difficult to see. Here are my
suggestions based on Chinese training that I have received
1. Flow block and strike together in both kata and kumite
2. Look for places where kicks and punches could be landed simultaneously
ditto.
3. Be soft and relaxed, very light in performing katas. In a fight, this
translates to taking a punch and allowing the energy to flow from the block
into the counter (whether same hand or opposite hand). So you dont have to
generate the power, the opponent does it for you.
4. Practise push hands (or sticky hands/and feet) rather than sports
sparring (although eventually you can merge the two) and look for kata moves
in it.
5. Also practice groundwork but deliberately look for kata techniques not
ju jitsu ones.
6. Learn Chinese conditioning methods and apply them not just to getting
fit but to fighting to generate power.
7. Develop your own kata applications and dont rely on someone elses.
Also be spontaneous in putting together combinations. Dont just look for
striking combinations, look for grappling moves, throws, vital area strikes,
pressure point techniques in the kata. Again find your own even if you
start with someone else's. Put a weapon in your hand and try to make the
kata work with the weapon and it does not have to be trad. weapon.
8. Never BLOCK an attack. Always avoid and yield, adhering to your
opponent and looking for a gap to penetrate his defences. Move when he does
and don't overanticipate or telegraph your intentions.
9. Study a kung fu system and bring what you learn back to correct your
Karate. But you dont have to change the forms just reinterpret the rhythm,
flow and application.
Lets make Trad Karate the martial art it should be again.
Richard
1hisbo...@bigfoot.com
This is tough. I am going to respond as though this is not a Troll.
If it is a Troll, somebody went to a lot of trouble.
On Mon, 24 Jan 2000 22:24:56 GMT, George Wenzel
<gwe...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>In article <388cc...@news2.vip.uk.com>, richar...@breathemail.net
>says...
>
>Regarding the subject line, I don't exactly know what you're trying to
>discuss. Traditional karate, quite clearly, is a martial art. It was
>originally taught to soldiers (you even state this in your post). It
>still is taught to the military and police. A means of fighting taught
>to be used in battle is the very definition of a "martial" art.
I have to go with George here. The definition of "Martial" is
"refering to war or relating to the warrior" (Webster's 9th
collegiate dictionary) The entire arguement is destroyed by a faulty
title. Hell, marching band is a Martial Art. (look it up.)
>
>>The end result of these trends was that Karate unlike Kung Fu has the
>>following traits.
>>
>>1. Blocks and counters are separate movements with no flow between them.
>
>I don't know if this is the case in the rest of the karate world, but it
>certainly isn't true in our club.
This is a generality that shows a lack of experience. I am trained in
five styles. In only one style that I studdied was this true, and it
was due to the personal beliefs of the instructor, not the style.
>>And attacks are separated instead of having simultaneous high and low or
>>left and right.
>
>I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Throwing a left and a right
>punch at the same time??
>
>>2. Applications are taught in a set manner instead of being developed on a
>>personal basis.
>
>Most of the time that bunkai is taught in our club, we ask the students
>to figure out what kinds of attacks a given block/counter would work well
>for.
Again, have to support George. This is an absurd statement. This has
NO validity in my experience. Bunkai must be taught specific to the
student's body style and strengths. This has been a tennat of all my
instructors except in Akido. (I do not think that this really applies
to Akido, as it is not karate).
>>3. There is no connection between sports sparring and kata moves or kata
>>moves and self defence.
What exactly do you think that Bunkai are? In my experience, thay are
hidden applications to the moves in a kata that show uses of the kata
in a fight. Are you using a diferent definition of "Bunkai"? Is this
the problem?
>I think that anybody that has trained in karate for any length of time
>will tell you that this simply isn't true. Personally, I have used moves
>taken directly from katas when sparring.
Yeah, there nothing quite so nice as nailing a sparring partner with a
combo right out of a beginning kata. 18 years later, I still feel
silly when it happens to me. :)
>>4. Chinese conditioning methods are either not used or have been corrupted
>>to the point of being dangerous to the practitoner (e.g. Sanchin)
As a good practitioner of Goju, I am going to have to agree that
Sanchin is not what it was supposed to be. However, many of the
"Chinese training methods" are not much better.
>>5. Chinese body dynamics have disappeared
So? Vajramushti body dynamics (remember, this was the Indian fighting
style that Bodhidharma was supposed to have taught the monks in the
origional Shaolin Temple) had disappeared in favor of gung fu body
dynamics. Remember that a LOT of Chinese body positioning has to do
with Buddhist religion and mythology, and not so much to do with
practicality. I do not care if my stance reflects the majesty of the
Emperor of the east as the tiger climbs the mountain. I need to have
a good ballanced stance that will let me move to attack, shift to
ground energy, or taisabaki to avoid. I do not care if the Emperor is
not appeased, as long as I stay in ballance and do not get hit.
>>6. Chinese strategic and tactical systems have been replaced by Japanese
>>based ones which are inappropriate to the techniques being used.
>
>Karate has been principally a Japanese art for the past hundred years or
>so. Why would you expect that _Chinese_ methods be used in a _Japanese_
>art?
I am not going to go along with either of these statements. With
respect, Karate (China Hand) is an Okinawan art, not Japanese. My
goju lineage runs from Okinawa through Japan. I will admit that
Japanese Goju seems VERY stiff to me, but I am not going to say that
they are inappropriate. Who are you or I to judge that? However, the
Okinawan methods are fairly close to the Chinese. I can find the
White Crane all through my system.
>
>>7. Grappling, throwing, groundwork and weaponry are left out of supposedly
>>sufficient systems
>
This is another absurd generalization. Get out more.
>Grappling and groundwork are a fundamental part of my style of karate
>(Wado Kai). The founder of Wado (Hironori Ohtsuka) practiced Jiu-jutsu
>long before he started training in karate.
Same here. We include anything that works that we can find anywhere
in our katas. We have 25 katas. I have two long time judo men as
assistant instructors, and I was a bar fighter in the paratroopers for
years. If I like it, I can find it in the kata.
>>and the only striking tools encouraged are the mid range
>>straight punch (easily blocked),
>
>Again, anybody who has trained in _any_ karate class will tell you that
>this simply isn't true. In our club, we teach elbow strikes, knee
>strikes, kicks, punches, palm-heel strikes, and so on, in addition to
>various throws and grappling techniques.
really.
>>the back fist and a variety of high kicks
>
>While in class we teach kicks principally to the midsection, mainly for
>safety reasons. If a kick is to be used in a self-defense situation, our
>students are told to kick to the knee or to the groin, and no higher.
again. George is completely right about this. If I ever find that I
need to knock a swordsman off a horse, and somehow forgot my Glock, I
will consider a high kick. Until that time, kicks stay below the
waist.
>>However, the point is that Karate has almost
>>completely lost touch with its Chinese origins
>
>Karate is no longer a chinese martial art. The Japanese took it and made
>it their own. As such, saying that it is no longer the same as it was
>prior to coming to Japan is a truism.
>
I have to Disagree with both. Karate belongs to the world. After
WWII, when the allies went home and took their training back home.
Where does this sound familiar? A stranger with foreignl training
comes along and takes the local fighting style, mixes the oriental art
with it, and develops a local fighting system. Is this Robert Trias?
Peter Urban? Ed Parker?
How about Kanryo Higonna? He brought White Crane/Whooping Crane to
Naha, mixed in the local Te, and formed Nahate.
What makes what he did "karate" and what Parker, Trias, and Urban (and
others, these are my personal heros) did "garbage"? Their race?
Guess again. Karate belongs to the world.
>>and been further corrupted by its sports orientation.
>
>Corrupted? Some would say that karate has changed with the times. I
>don't know about where you live, but there aren't any roving hordes of
>attackers surrounding my house.
>
>>It has reached the point where it has ceased to be a martial art.
THIS is a Troll line.
>Nope. Karate is still taught to the military and police as a means of
>self-defense. As such, it's still a martial art.
>
>>1. What martial art aimed at training people to fight
>
>The core goal of karate is to teach people to become better persons.
>This is done via teaching fighting techniques, but those are only the
>means, not the ends.
>
>>would leave out vital
>>area striking, grappling, groundwork and weapons from its syllabus ?
>
>Most of these are still included in a great number of karate clubs. They
>certainly are a part of ours.
What "karate" exactly have you been watching? JKA Shotokan? This is
not the only karate around.
>>2. What martial art would train in form one way but always fight in a
>>different way ?
I don;t know. I have only trained in five stlyes. Perhaps if I train
in more, I will find one that does what you are talking about.
>Katas are not entirely designed to teach people fighting techniques.
>That is what sparring is for. Certainly, katas do serve that function,
>but katas are not the same as shadow boxing.
>>EVen boxers shadow spar with the moves they would use.
>
>Boxing and karate are different. As such, different teaching techniques
>are used.
I am sorry. I have always considered Boxing a Martial Art.
>>3. What martial art would encourage its participants to move in a stiff
>>wooden fashion, practically immobilising hands and feet relative to fighting
>>speed ?
>
>This certainly doesn't sound like the karate that is taught in our club.
Really. Get out more.
>>4. and encourage increasing power to be driven through rigidified joints
>>shocking them into arthritic uselessness?
>
>Our club specifically teaches students NOT to hyperextend their knees and
>elbows. We do this because, as you suggest, it causes a great deal of
>damage.
Hyperextention is the antithesis of what we teach. You have wandered
down the generalization highway again...
>>5. What martial art would encourage its students to become clones of one
>>another instead of developing their individual strengths and weaknesses ?
>
>Again, if you had trained in a good karate school for any length of time
>you would know this simply is not true.
Again, I don't know I have never seen such a Martial Art.
>>6. What martial art would concentrate solely on one conditioning method
>>(local muscle stamina ie. press ups, sit ups etc) and ignore weights,
>>aerobic and cardiovascular training, flexibility not to mention traditional
>>Chinese methods from which it originally derived?
You seem to be obsessed with this "Chinese" thing. Certainly, you are
not of the impression that Martial Arts came from China? You do
realize that EVERY civilization that has existed has formed a defense
system based on available technology to protect itself. I would
recomend an article in Tae Kwon Do Times (Nov 1997) By Dr. Kent
Haralson, tracing the Martial Arts to biblical times. This should
help debunk any silliness about Martial Arts being invented by Chinese
monks.
>Work-outs in our club consist of running, crunches, push-ups, jumping
>jacks, as well as numerous other calisthenic exercises. We don't train
>with weights within the class because weight training is somewhat
>difficult to do within a group setting. Students are encouraged,
>however, to do resistance training outside of class.
>
>>As you see, I could go on and on and on and on and on.
With more and more generalities that mean nothing. I (and George)
have listed specific incidences, and a bit of our backgrounds. Would
care to match us with specifics, or are you really just Trolling?
>All you are doing is proclaiming to the world how little you know about
>karate. How long have you trained in traditional karate? How many
>different clubs have you attended? Or are you just forming your opinions
>out of thin air?
>
>>Here are my
>>suggestions based on Chinese training that I have received
>
>How long have you had this "Chinese training" (I'm assuming you're
>referring to Wing Chun).
>
>>Lets make Trad Karate the martial art it should be again.
Oh, let's! Will you be O'Sensei?
>If you don't like what is taught in one karate class, you can always try
>another. What you describe of karate seems exceedingly biased, and I
>believe you have only been exposed to (at most) one or two karate
>clubs/styles.
>
>Regards,
>
>George Wenzel
>--
>George Wenzel, B.A. (Criminology) E-Mail: <gwe...@telusplanet.net>
>President & Webmaster, U of A Karate Club - http://www.ualberta.ca/~karate/
George, I may not agree with everything you said, but overall I do
tend to support your theories. It is said that the true measure of a
man's intelligence is the extent that he agrees with you. I think
that you are pretty smart! :)
Duncan M.A.T. (Education) E-mail: mat...@cicada.com
President of Western Carolina (WCU) Karate Club
North Carolina Headquarters for the World sansei Goju-Ryu Karate
Organization. http://matoday.cicada.com
Kempo Guy
> 1. Blocks and counters are separate movements with no flow between them.
> And attacks are separated instead of having simultaneous high and low or
> left and right.
I can only speak of the styles I have experience in, but in Shorin Ryu
(which is my main style) you can not get further from what you state above.
A block is a strike, often it bouces right into a counter strike either
higher or lower than the initial block. Strikes and counters are done in
quick succession and are not A Block, then A Punch.
> 2. Applications are taught in a set manner instead of being developed on
a
> personal basis.
Actually, in our style bunkai are tailored to the individual of course
within the framework of the style. The kata taught are to remember
individual movements/encounters. There are no "set" bunkai, there may
literally be hundreds of them within one kata. Generally a few variations of
bunkai is taught for each movement, then it is up to the individual to delve
deeper into the meaning of kata.
> 3. There is no connection between sports sparring and kata moves or kata
> moves and self defence. In Chinese systems, the kata moves are also the
> sports moves and are also the self defence moves.
In Okinawan Systems, the kata are self-defense movements, never a sport.
Sparring is taught, but is generally seperated from the fighting aspects of
the art.
> 4. Chinese conditioning methods are either not used or have been
corrupted
> to the point of being dangerous to the practitoner (e.g. Sanchin)
Although I am not a practitioner of Sanchin, I have had the opportunity to
see Chinese styles that are related to the Naha-te lineage styles of Karate,
i.e. Fukien White Crane Arts. Their breathing methods are quite similar to
the Naha-te styles and are quite vigerous, although not as vigerous as what
I have seen in some Goju factions.
We practice several different methods for conditioning such as Kotekitae,
breathing patterns like chi-gung to develop internal power, makiwara etc.
> 5. Chinese body dynamics have disappeared
I am not quite sure what you are referring to here? Could you please
elaborate?
> 6. Chinese strategic and tactical systems have been replaced by Japanese
> based ones which are inappropriate to the techniques being used.
I am not too familar with Chinese systems, besides Tai Chi so I can not
comment. However, in Okinawan Karate as I know it, we are taught limb
destruction, pressure-point fighting etc. To be able to move from one range
to another in a smooth transition.
> 7. Grappling, throwing, groundwork and weaponry are left out of
supposedly
> sufficient systems and the only striking tools encouraged are the mid
range
> straight punch (easily blocked), the back fist and a variety of high kicks
> (even easier blocked and very risky unless one is extremely athletic in a
> real fight)
I am not sure what you are referring to here as I have never seen what you
are describing in Okinawan Karate. The grappling aspect of Karate is called
tuite, which is seizing pressure points along with joint-locks and throws.
From what I have seen, Tode (Karate) is a close range fighting system and I
have never seen high kicks advocated EVER. The straight punch is taught and
is quite similar to the straight blast of Wing Chun. As to weapons, the
Kobudo of the Ryukyu Islands developed independently from Karate, although
nowadays it is taught quite frequently within a style. There are a lot of
great weapons taught, excluding the typical sai, kama, tonfa etc.
> I could go on and on. However, the point is that Karate has almost
> completely lost touch with its Chinese origins and been further corrupted
by
> its sports orientation. It has reached the point where it has ceased to
be
> a martial art. Let's put it another way.
I can see your point here. If you look at most Japanese versions of Karate,
it has taken on the typical Japanese flavor. I have read in several books
that when Karate left Okinawa it was shaped with other Japanese Budo in
mind, such as Kendo and Judo, and was taught first and foremost to refine
your spirit etc. and the self-defense was put on the back-burner.
However, if you look at traditional Okinawan Karate it still has some flavor
from the Chinese arts.
> 1. What martial art aimed at training people to fight would leave out
vital
> area striking, grappling, groundwork and weapons from its syllabus ?
Okinawan Karate does not leave the vital area striking out, it is called
Kyusho Jutsu. The grappling is called Tuite Jutsu. Weapons are taught as a
separate art or within a system. In the style of Shorin Ryu I practice we
are taught weapons as a part of the curriculum. There are very few kata for
the weapons, but we are taught how to wield a weapon nontheless. This was
how my teacher was taught by his teacher in Okinawa.
> 2. What martial art would train in form one way but always fight in a
> different way ? EVen boxers shadow spar with the moves they would use.
Boxing is a sport. We actually do spar but do what we call Bogu Kumite (full
contact with body armour) which is quite common in Okinawa. We also do a lot
of Yakusoku Kumite (pre-arranged sparring) which gives us for instance the
attack but we can respond in any manner, or all you might know is that there
will be three successive attacks but without knowing if it is kicks or
strikes etc. Depends on the ability of the student.
> 3. What martial art would encourage its participants to move in a stiff
> wooden fashion, practically immobilising hands and feet relative to
fighting
> speed ?
Not any style of Karate I am familiar with. Perhaps you observed the basics
of a class. You move in a structured manner (as in footwork) so you don't
have to worry about it while learning punches and kicks etc. We are taught
to move soft and fast but strike with "heavy" hands, however this is very
difficult for a beginner so we go step by step. Essentially building blocks
in order to obtain proper form, speed, focus and power.
> 4. and encourage increasing power to be driven through rigidified joints
> shocking them into arthritic uselessness?
All power are from the legs and the hips. We are taught to keep our elbows
slightly bent etc. No need to straighten them too far due to injuries.
> 5. What martial art would encourage its students to become clones of one
> another instead of developing their individual strengths and weaknesses ?
> (even sports karateka know better than that)
This is what we do. We develop the individuals attributes in order for them
to be efficient using the strategy and tactics of our style.
> 6. What martial art would concentrate solely on one conditioning method
> (local muscle stamina ie. press ups, sit ups etc) and ignore weights,
> aerobic and cardiovascular training, flexibility not to mention
traditional
> Chinese methods from which it originally derived?
In Okinwan Karate we have something called Hojo-Undo, which is essentially
weight lifting. It is taught within the framework of the style and really
helps develop the musculature etc. for the different techniques you are
taught in the dojo.
I would be curious to know what you refer to when you say "traditional
Chinese methods from which it originally derived?" Just remember that
Karate is an Okinawan art. It was obviously heavily influenced by the
Chinese arts, however a lot of the material taught are techniques indigenous
to the Ryukyu Islands. This may be why some Chinese training methods did not
survive in Okinawa while other may have.......
> As you see, I could go on and on and on and on and on. But I won't. In
one
> sense there is nothing wrong with Trad Karate. i.e. the kata do contain
> everything needed to be a martial artist but they are performed in such a
> simplified and childish way that it is very difficult to see. Here are my
> suggestions based on Chinese training that I have received
As to Karate, I could go on and on as well. I came from a "modern" style,
i.e. Ken/mpo and JKD, but my main focus is still in traditional Karate. I
have learned many things as a mudansha (below black belt) that was never
taught to me in the other arts I mentioned. Kata bunkai is often taught
exactly in the sequence as it occurs in the kata, which is generally not the
case.
> 1. Flow block and strike together in both kata and kumite
We are taught flow-drills which goes from a block to a strike into a
grappling maneuver etc. These are taught and practiced in conjunction with
Kata. This is also were we start getting into the yakusoku kumite I
mentioned earlier.
> 2. Look for places where kicks and punches could be landed simultaneously
> ditto.
In Shorin Ryu we do this quite often. Kick and strike, block and kick, seize
and kick, buckle and strike......and on and on.
> 3. Be soft and relaxed, very light in performing katas. In a fight, this
> translates to taking a punch and allowing the energy to flow from the
block
> into the counter (whether same hand or opposite hand). So you dont have
to
> generate the power, the opponent does it for you.
All our Kata are taught this way. Never forced. In the beginning when we
learn kata it looks quite rigid, but as we get more advanced the movements
start flowing together. Use the opponents force as well as generating subtle
power to strike your opponent.
> 4. Practise push hands (or sticky hands/and feet) rather than sports
> sparring (although eventually you can merge the two) and look for kata
moves
> in it.
Our flow drills are similar to Chi-Sao of Wing Chun. As I mentioned this is
taught with the kata in mind.
> 5. Also practice groundwork but deliberately look for kata techniques not
> ju jitsu ones.
Quite a few of the movements within kata can be interpreted as ground
fighting techniques.
> 6. Learn Chinese conditioning methods and apply them not just to getting
> fit but to fighting to generate power.
Again, if you could elaborate on these methods.
> 7. Develop your own kata applications and dont rely on someone elses.
> Also be spontaneous in putting together combinations. Dont just look for
> striking combinations, look for grappling moves, throws, vital area
strikes,
> pressure point techniques in the kata. Again find your own even if you
> start with someone else's. Put a weapon in your hand and try to make the
> kata work with the weapon and it does not have to be trad. weapon.
I think I answered this already......... This is what we do in EVERY class.
> 8. Never BLOCK an attack. Always avoid and yield, adhering to your
> opponent and looking for a gap to penetrate his defences. Move when he
does
> and don't overanticipate or telegraph your intentions.
We always avoid an attack, however if someone is throwing a punch at you,
take the closest target which in this case happens to be the arm. Destroy it
and they cannot use it........ then move in as you will have the advantage.
> 9. Study a kung fu system and bring what you learn back to correct your
> Karate. But you dont have to change the forms just reinterpret the
rhythm,
> flow and application.
If you have a competent teacher, this should not be necessary. However, I am
always open to learning from others.
I think it would be in your best interest to visit a traditional Karate
school. You may have a better chance in seeing what I discuss in an Okinawan
Karate school, however this is not always the case. IMHO, you are certainly
on the right track, however there are dojo that still teach the old methods.
Just my $0.02.
KG
Matt Harrell
>
> >>6. Chinese strategic and tactical systems have been replaced by Japanese
> >>based ones which are inappropriate to the techniques being used.
> >
> >Karate has been principally a Japanese art for the past hundred years or
> >so. Why would you expect that _Chinese_ methods be used in a _Japanese_
> >art?
>
> I am not going to go along with either of these statements. With
> respect, Karate (China Hand) is an Okinawan art, not Japanese. My
> goju lineage runs from Okinawa through Japan. I will admit that
> Japanese Goju seems VERY stiff to me, but I am not going to say that
> they are inappropriate. Who are you or I to judge that? However, the
> Okinawan methods are fairly close to the Chinese. I can find the
> White Crane all through my system.
While I agree with your point, technically, "karate" does not mean
"China hand". Karate means "empty hand". "Tode" means "China hand"
(and the kanji are different). The name was changed from tode to karate
early in the 1900's because the (mainland) Japanese wanted to
de-emphasize the martial art's connection to Chinese ch'uan fa ("kung
fu", or kempo--the Japanese pronunciation of the kanji pronounced ch'uan
fa by the Chinese).
--
Matt Harrell
mhar...@voyager.net
http://my.voyager.net/mharrell
Don
when I realized that they were so general in their put down of
everything, and your real purpose was to promote Kung Fu of one type or
another, I decided that instead of discoursing at all in defense of
Karate/ Martial arts, I would offer for you to respond to me through my
e-mail, and invite you to a few of my classes and see how many of your
statements you felt still held true afterwards. dalt...@iocc.com
Regards, Donald R Dalton
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
1hisbo...@bigfoot.com
>> I am not going to go along with either of these statements. With
>> respect, Karate (China Hand) is an Okinawan art, not Japanese. My
>> goju lineage runs from Okinawa through Japan. I will admit that
>> Japanese Goju seems VERY stiff to me, but I am not going to say that
>> they are inappropriate. Who are you or I to judge that? However, the
>> Okinawan methods are fairly close to the Chinese. I can find the
>> White Crane all through my system.
>
>"China hand". Karate means "empty hand". "Tode" means "China hand"
>(and the kanji are different). The name was changed from tode to karate
>early in the 1900's because the (mainland) Japanese wanted to
>de-emphasize the martial art's connection to Chinese ch'uan fa ("kung
>fu", or kempo--the Japanese pronunciation of the kanji pronounced ch'uan
>fa by the Chinese).
>
group. Open discussion. I am going to give my source on this one. I
am quoting from "Karate-Do, My Way of Life" by Gichin Funakoshi.
Understand that I am not now, nor have I been a Shotokan practitioner.
I do, however, respect Funakoshi for his hundreds of contributions to
the art of karate. It is arguable that he REALLY is the founder of
modern karate. In his book (pp33) He states:
The Japanese language is not an easy one to master, nor is it
always quite so explicit as it might be: different characters may have
exactly the same pronunciation, and a single character may have
different pronunciations, depending upon the use. The expression
'karate' is an excellent example. 'Te' is easy enough; it means
"hand(s)." But there are two quite different characters that are both
pronounced 'kara'; one means "empty," ant the other is the Chinese
character referring to the Tang dynasty and may be translated
"Chinese."
So should our Martial Art be written with that characters that
mean "empty hand(s)" or with those that mean "Chinese hand(s)"? Here
again we are in the shadowy realm of conjecture, but I believe I am
safe in saying that before I came to Tokyo from Okinawa in the early
1920's it was customary to use the character for "Chinese" rather than
that for "empty" to write karate, but this certainly does not mean
that the use of the "Chinese" 'kara' was necessarily correct.
True, in Okinawa we used the word 'karate', but more often we
called the art merely 'te' or 'bushi no te' "warrior's hand(s)".
Ok. Enough of that. A few paragraphs later, he states :
...It came about when Keio University formed a karate research
group, and I was able to suggest that the art be renamed 'Dai Nippon
Kempo Karate-Do' ("Great Japen Fist-Method Empty-Hands Way"), making
use of the character for "empty" rather than "Chinese".
Anyway, here is the source for my information. I feel it to be
relatively reliable. For the record, I accept that Funakoshi deserves
the credit/blame for the changing the kanji to make Karate a more
palatable art for the main stream Japanese. He was the only Okinawan
on the Keio University research group, and at that time karate was
almost exclusively in the domain of Okinawa.
I have also heard of 'Tode' meaning "China Hand". At this point I
would like to bring in a reference from the wonderful work of Pat
McCarthy in his translation of "The Bubishi". He states that
Hanashiro Chomo, a direct disciple of "Bushi" Matsumura, made the
first recorded use of an ideogram to replace the "China" ideogram in
his 1905 publication "Karate Kumite". McCarthy also stated that
Master Kinjo Hiroshi assured that, until WWII, the Uchinan masters
generly refered to karate as 'toudi.' 'Tode' or 'toudi' appears to
have been a nickname.
I believe that Funakoshi was trying to get karate accepted by the
Butokukai (Japan's National Governing Body for Competitive Arts), and
this led to the changing of the kanji.
A major factor that might have lead to the removal of the "China" was
the fact that the Japanese Army was occupying great portions of China
at this time, and no one would study the are of "inferior" warriors.
These are just a few of my observations. If you have some references
that I am unaware of PLEASE let me know. I love Martial History.
Respectfully,
Duncan
Sansei Goju-Ryu
http://matoday.cicada.com
mat...@cicada.com
1hisbo...@bigfoot.com
Damn. This was a LOT better than my reply.
I should have thought of this.
--Duncan--
richardmcevoy
what I was trying to get at.
First, I know I am generalising. In fact, worse than that, I am taking the
worst of what I have seen in the Karate world (2 years of Wado-ryu plus 12
years of Goju-ryu and of course exposure to other styles of Karate and other
martial arts: Aikido, Okinawa Ti (Goten Te), TCC, Wing Chun, Lau Gar, Silat)
and putting it together and saying this stuff is really bad. Of course
there are clubs which do a hell of a lot better than that. But the ultimate
point of this thread is what constitutes good Karate (some of which you have
mentioned) and what is bad Karate. That controversial tag line was to draw
you in.
But there are elements of truth in it. Some of the so called 'traditional'
stuff is neither traditional (in the normal sense of being there from the
start of the art or early on in its development) nor any good in terms of
Karate's purpose.
Second, yes I am trying to promote Kung Fu but not as an anthithesis to
Karate but rather as pointing out that Karate was in origin 19th century
Southern Shaolin from the Fuzhou, Fukien provinces and from Taiwan. I agree
that in both Okinawa and Japan there were indigenous developments. However,
I would also argue that some of those indigenous developments have led to
bad Karate or more accurately bad martial arts. ie. systems of training and
conditioning which fail to teach people to fight realistically at all ranges
with or without weaponry. I would also argue that the fundamentally Chinese
nature of Karate has or should not be overlooked in favour of these
indigenous developments. Otherwise you a missing the point which is that
any martial art should have a reasonably consistent training basis and
breaking away from that basis ruins the martial art. JKA Shotokan is perhaps
an extreme example of this but certainly features of it have crept into
other ryuha.
Therefore, I see Kung Fu training as a help to Karate. Because it brings it
back to its cultural source.
Fighting is a central point to this discussion. Karate may very well teach
you how to be a gentleman or lead to enlightenment etc but if it fails to
teach you to fight then it's worse than useless. Imagine a yoga player
saying that yoga gives him enlightenment and yet being crap at stretching or
an artist saying painting gives him enlightenment and yet his art is on the
level of a 5 year old. Enlightenment presupposes genuine skill and
accomplishment or it is not true enlightenment.
To give a real for instance of what I have learnt from Kung Fu and brought
into my Karate to its great improvement is push hands. Before all you
Gojuists jump on top of me and proclaim the virtues of Kakie however, I
would point out that what I really gained was a sophisticated view of push
hands as a means of translating all of my kata moves into sparring/fighting
technique and as a principle of movement which can be applied to every
fighting situation.- groundwork etc etc etc.
Richard
P.S. Just to point out, no matter how poetical the description, Kung Fu
moves are all deadly realistic and this is equally true of kata once they
are done in a lovely flowing soft fashion rather than in the rigid way
taught to juniors and sometimes perpetuated forever in the training halls
even to the highest level students.
Don wrote in message <25d0e1ac...@usw-ex0105-037.remarq.com>...
Kempo Guy
'traditional'
> stuff is neither traditional (in the normal sense of being there from the
> start of the art or early on in its development) nor any good in terms of
> Karate's purpose.
Again, there is a difference between "traditional" Japanese Karate and
"traditional" Okinawan Karate.
> Second, yes I am trying to promote Kung Fu but not as an anthithesis to
> Karate but rather as pointing out that Karate was in origin 19th century
> Southern Shaolin from the Fuzhou, Fukien provinces and from Taiwan. I
agree
> that in both Okinawa and Japan there were indigenous developments.
However,
> I would also argue that some of those indigenous developments have led to
> bad Karate or more accurately bad martial arts. ie. systems of training
and
> conditioning which fail to teach people to fight realistically at all
ranges
> with or without weaponry.
I would like to say that this is true for the arts that adapted Anko Itosu's
way of teaching. Which as we know was modified for the educational system of
Okinawa. However, many did not adapt this teaching style.
In addition, I would like to mention that the old methods of technique and
training although not as prevalent in the US, is quite common in Okinawa.
The Tuite and Kyusho, as well as Tegumi is taught and practiced in many dojo
there. However most foreigners do not advance to this stage of training
before they leave.
>I would also argue that the fundamentally Chinese
> nature of Karate has or should not be overlooked in favour of these
> indigenous developments. Otherwise you a missing the point which is that
> any martial art should have a reasonably consistent training basis and
> breaking away from that basis ruins the martial art. JKA Shotokan is
perhaps
> an extreme example of this but certainly features of it have crept into
> other ryuha.
> Therefore, I see Kung Fu training as a help to Karate. Because it brings
it
> back to its cultural source.
Personally I train in Kung Fu, i.e. Tai Ji and Ba Gua and have to say that
the "feel" of the arts are quite different. The training has helped my
Karate and possibly my Karate training has helped some of my Kung Fu
especially in the respect of extending "ki" and the feeling of heavy hands
in striking.
> Fighting is a central point to this discussion. Karate may very well
teach
> you how to be a gentleman or lead to enlightenment etc but if it fails to
> teach you to fight then it's worse than useless. Imagine a yoga player
> saying that yoga gives him enlightenment and yet being crap at stretching
or
> an artist saying painting gives him enlightenment and yet his art is on
the
> level of a 5 year old. Enlightenment presupposes genuine skill and
> accomplishment or it is not true enlightenment.
In my last post I mentioned that "fighting" was secondary when Karate (Tode)
was exported to Japan. It is a "Do" which is very different than "Jutsu" but
I am not going to open up that can of worms here........ may be later. :-)
You mention, Gotente..... well, are you referring to Motobu-ryu? If you have
seen Uehara Sensei move......well it is supposedly of Okinawan Origin and it
is very soft and fluid art. However, I have only seen him perform in his old
age, but have been told the techniques are performed in a very soft manner.
It reminds me a little of Ba Gua.........
Just my $0.02.
KG
storys
"richardmcevoy" <richar...@breathemail.net> wrote in message >
> Please do not take this as a troll. It is a very serious message which IMO
> needs to be considered by the traditional world. BTW this does not mean I
> think that freestyle karate is any closer to the mark, if anything it is
> further away.
>
O.K I'll treat it as serious. I study both a traditional art and a Freestyle
so I can see both worlds.
>
> Teaching such required that only basic methods be used and that strict
> discipline be applied. Attacks and defences had to be absorbed quickly by
> soldiers so set bunkai were devised.
Then if you wanted more you went to a real dojo and learned!
> School children could not be taught
> deadly attacks so kata were simplified and more deadly interpretations
> dropped.
See above!
>
> 1. Blocks and counters are separate movements with no flow between them.
> And attacks are separated instead of having simultaneous high and low or
> left and right.
Not in either traditional or freestyle that I do. I often confuse a block
and a strike as both can be either & unless the situation makes it clear
then either interpretation is open. As far as the high low type of thing,
ever hear the phrase work the ladder? If not ask an instructor from a
combative form of karate. they are out there. If you knew about this you
wouldn't make comments like the above.
> 2. Applications are taught in a set manner instead of being developed on
a
> personal basis.
Starts out that way yes, especially at the 10'th to mid level kyu belt
level. After that then things change and you are told the first level bunkai
and helped to discover more. If you find something new that works this is
better than good so point two doesn't apply to either style I learn either.
> 3. There is no connection between sports sparring and kata moves or kata
> moves and self defence. In Chinese systems, the kata moves are also the
> sports moves and are also the self defence moves.
I'm not going to touch this one. If you actually believe this there is
little if any hope for you. Suffice it to say you aren't even in the right
country let alone the right city or ballpark.
> 4. Chinese conditioning methods are either not used or have been
corrupted
> to the point of being dangerous to the practitoner (e.g. Sanchin)
Other methods can be used. My art, Goju, uses Sanchin in so many different
forms as to be unbelievable. Some are believed harmfull yes. If that's the
case DON'T DO IT THAT WAY!!!! Sounds simple enough. Other forms of Goju do
it differently more like the way of Sam Chien. This is virtually the same as
the Chinese "Five Ancestor Fist " form so I have to say that even
traditionalists do do it the Chinese way. No not all but some.
> 5. Chinese body dynamics have disappeared
Have a boo sometime at a high Dan ranked Goju player and then at a high
ranked White Crane player doing the same or a related form. Then come back &
tell me if you can still say this.
> 6. Chinese strategic and tactical systems have been replaced by Japanese
> based ones which are inappropriate to the techniques being used.
If they don't work for you then I suggest that it is you who is doing
something wrong. Do you really think the Japanese would continue to use some
technique that didn't work???? The Japanese masters are past masters at
adapting things to fit their society. We don't do as well
> 7. Grappling, throwing, groundwork and weaponry are left out of
supposedly
> sufficient systems and the only striking tools encouraged are the mid
range
> straight punch (easily blocked), the back fist and a variety of high kicks
> (even easier blocked and very risky unless one is extremely athletic in a
> real fight)
>
Goju lacks the high kicks. Freestyle has them but they are only used for
training. ( If you can kick the head with speed and power then a kick to the
inner thigh is going to be blindingly fast! ) None of the above is left out
of Goju. All has been part of just about any grading I've ever taken part
in. One a couple back involved an escape from the mount. Does this not
qualify as groundwork? I escaped and got a submission all without leaving
the ground. I forget ( if I ever knew) whether this was part of a freestyle
thing or Goju. There is a very large amount of overlap. True somethings
are pure Goju. Elbows etc. at 0 distance. Other things are pure freestyle
like kicks higher than the waist. Many things however partake of both.
>
> I could go on and on. However, the point is that Karate has almost
> completely lost touch with its Chinese origins and been further corrupted
by
> its sports orientation. It has reached the point where it has ceased to
be
> a martial art. Let's put it another way.
>
Lets not. If you want to study a pure Chinese art the go ahead and do so.
You have my blessing for this ( FWIW) There is nothing wrong with the
Chinese arts beyond the individual weaknesses of any given style and every
style has them. This is why I study two. The one is intended to fill any
holes I discover in the other.
> 1. What martial art aimed at training people to fight would leave out
vital
> area striking, grappling, groundwork and weapons from its syllabus ?
Neither of mine!
> 2. What martial art would train in form one way but always fight in a
> different way ? EVen boxers shadow spar with the moves they would use.
So do we. Forms teach somethings but are not suposed to teach the actual
moves used in fighting.
> 3. What martial art would encourage its participants to move in a stiff
> wooden fashion, practically immobilising hands and feet relative to
fighting
> speed ?
Danged if I know maybe you can explain how this would be. I simply don't
know this as I've never learned this.
> 4. and encourage increasing power to be driven through rigidified joints
> shocking them into arthritic uselessness?
Never run into this either!
> 5. What martial art would encourage its students to become clones of one
> another instead of developing their individual strengths and weaknesses ?
> (even sports karateka know better than that)
So now you admit that this is not so!!
> 6. What martial art would concentrate solely on one conditioning method
> (local muscle stamina ie. press ups, sit ups etc) and ignore weights,
> aerobic and cardiovascular training, flexibility not to mention
traditional
> Chinese methods from which it originally derived?
>
Again I don't know as I've never been taught or learned this stuff this way.
Are you sure you aren't smoking something???
.........Tom............
storys
"Matt Harrell" <mhar...@voyager.net> wrote in message news:388e5752$0>
> While I agree with your point, technically, "karate" does not mean
> "China hand". Karate means "empty hand". "Tode" means "China hand"
> (and the kanji are different). The name was changed from tode to karate
> early in the 1900's because the (mainland) Japanese wanted to
> de-emphasize the martial art's connection to Chinese ch'uan fa ("kung
> fu", or kempo--the Japanese pronunciation of the kanji pronounced ch'uan
> fa by the Chinese).
Sorry Matt but originally Kara te did mean China hand. The kanji was changed
to empty but the pronounciation stayed the same. There was/is quite a bit of
predjudice at the time and it became empty hand as sort of a marketing ply
to make it more palatable to the masses. think about it for a moment.
Okinawan karate ( karate is one word in English & two in Japanese ) has a
very long tradition of kobudo or weapons. Does this sound like real empty
hand stuff. I'm just a beginner by karate standards & I know the bo,
nunchucks, sai, and tonfa. IOW my hands are always empty ;-)
.......Tom.......
storys
<1hisbo...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:388e93aa...@news.earthlink.net...
> >Karate/ Martial arts, I would offer for you to respond to me through my
> >e-mail, and invite you to a few of my classes and see how many of your
> >statements you felt still held true afterwards. dalt...@iocc.com
> >Regards, Donald R Dalton
> >
> >
> >* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion
Network *
> >The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
> >
>
>
> I should have thought of this
I didn't do any better either. Egg must be good for you. I seem to get a lot
of it on my face!
.......Tom.........
richardmcevoy
storys wrote in message ...
>
>"richardmcevoy" <richar...@breathemail.net> wrote in message >
>> Please do not take this as a troll. It is a very serious message which
IMO
>> needs to be considered by the traditional world. BTW this does not mean
I
>> think that freestyle karate is any closer to the mark, if anything it is
>> further away.
>>
>
>O.K I'll treat it as serious. I study both a traditional art and a
Freestyle
>so I can see both worlds.
>
Actually I am coming at this not from free style but from the viewpoint of
being ultra traditional ie. I believe that Karate is a form of kung fu and
should be treated as such although there were some indigenous development in
certain styles in Okinawa.
>>
>> Teaching such required that only basic methods be used and that strict
>> discipline be applied. Attacks and defences had to be absorbed quickly by
>> soldiers so set bunkai were devised.
>
>Then if you wanted more you went to a real dojo and learned!
>
>> School children could not be taught
>> deadly attacks so kata were simplified and more deadly interpretations
>> dropped.
>
>See above!
>
The problem is that the only Karate that I have seen in the UK is the high
school variety.
>>
>> 1. Blocks and counters are separate movements with no flow between them.
>> And attacks are separated instead of having simultaneous high and low or
>> left and right.
>
>Not in either traditional or freestyle that I do. I often confuse a block
>and a strike as both can be either & unless the situation makes it clear
>then either interpretation is open. As far as the high low type of thing,
>ever hear the phrase work the ladder? If not ask an instructor from a
>combative form of karate. they are out there. If you knew about this you
>wouldn't make comments like the above.
>
I would go even further than this and say that any kata technique can be
applied in a wide variety of ways not just blocking and striking but
grappling, throwing, groundwork , weapons etc
>> 2. Applications are taught in a set manner instead of being developed on
>a
>> personal basis.
>
>Starts out that way yes, especially at the 10'th to mid level kyu belt
>level. After that then things change and you are told the first level
bunkai
>and helped to discover more. If you find something new that works this is
>better than good so point two doesn't apply to either style I learn either.
>
Again, in the UK, there seems to be very little leeway at least in the trad.
clubs.
>> 3. There is no connection between sports sparring and kata moves or kata
>> moves and self defence. In Chinese systems, the kata moves are also the
>> sports moves and are also the self defence moves.
>
>I'm not going to touch this one. If you actually believe this there is
>little if any hope for you. Suffice it to say you aren't even in the right
>country let alone the right city or ballpark.
>
Sorry, I am studying with a teacher who has been to China and this is true.
Certainly it is true for self defence and dojo sparring - occasionally the
sports boys get a little out of hand :-).
>> 4. Chinese conditioning methods are either not used or have been
>corrupted
>> to the point of being dangerous to the practitoner (e.g. Sanchin)
>
>Other methods can be used. My art, Goju, uses Sanchin in so many different
>forms as to be unbelievable. Some are believed harmfull yes. If that's the
>case DON'T DO IT THAT WAY!!!! Sounds simple enough. Other forms of Goju do
>it differently more like the way of Sam Chien. This is virtually the same
as
>the Chinese "Five Ancestor Fist " form so I have to say that even
>traditionalists do do it the Chinese way. No not all but some.
The main problem with Sanchin training is the vasalva manoeuvre ie. holding
the breathing while dynamically tensing the muscles. This puts massive
pressure on the CV system. Personally, I have ceased to use Sanchin for
condition and utilise internal power qigong instead which are compatible
with the system and with the hojo undo of Goju.
>
>> 5. Chinese body dynamics have disappeared
>
>Have a boo sometime at a high Dan ranked Goju player and then at a high
>ranked White Crane player doing the same or a related form. Then come back
&
>tell me if you can still say this.
>
I have seen a high ranked goju player and while what he was doing was
externally similar to the crane player, internally it was completely wrong.
Can't be explained by email properly but if you have had experience of TCC,
you would know that these internal dynamics also exist in Crane boxing and
Gojuists IMO don't display them. Moreover their kata are too jerky and show
too much power. (I have a video of Morio Higaonna and he demonstrates these
poor karacteristics (sorry couldn't resist the pun) to a tee despite the
fact that some of his stuff is quite good.
IMO techniques should be light, soft, flowing and power should be
practically invisible when applied at the point of contact.
>> 6. Chinese strategic and tactical systems have been replaced by Japanese
>> based ones which are inappropriate to the techniques being used.
>
>If they don't work for you then I suggest that it is you who is doing
>something wrong. Do you really think the Japanese would continue to use
some
>technique that didn't work???? The Japanese masters are past masters at
>adapting things to fit their society. We don't do as well
>
Yes, the Japanese are that dumb. For example, they continue to consume
white rice by the ton despite the fact it gives them stomach cancer (though
we can talk). As for adapting things to their society, they neatly adapted
19th century nationalism into 20th century imperialism and it blew up in
their face. And as for a Japanese Karateka going up anyone half competent
in Kung Fu in a real fight, well I would like to know what flowers he wants
put on his grave.
Studying two styles is a good idea done this way.
But my point is that Karate is Chinese with some supplementary stuff from
Okinawan Ti. To say that 100 years of development takes away from 300 or
even 1000 years of cultural origination seems completely idiotic. Sorry :-)
>
>> 1. What martial art aimed at training people to fight would leave out
>vital
>> area striking, grappling, groundwork and weapons from its syllabus ?
>
>Neither of mine!
>
>> 2. What martial art would train in form one way but always fight in a
>> different way ? EVen boxers shadow spar with the moves they would use.
>
>So do we. Forms teach somethings but are not suposed to teach the actual
>moves used in fighting.
>
Sorry, but forms are meant to teach you the actual moves in fighting if in a
somewhat idealised way. ie. they show the perfect way to do the move whereas
in a fight you have to go with the flow and do the move slightly imperfectly
to bring it off but it should be wholly recognisable.
>> 3. What martial art would encourage its participants to move in a stiff
>> wooden fashion, practically immobilising hands and feet relative to
>fighting
>> speed ?
>
>Danged if I know maybe you can explain how this would be. I simply don't
>know this as I've never learned this.
>
Good but I have seen it done and had it done to me. I am recovering though.
>> 4. and encourage increasing power to be driven through rigidified joints
>> shocking them into arthritic uselessness?
>
>Never run into this either!
>
You should see our resident 7th Dan in Wado ,a more arthritic guy you never
met.
>> 5. What martial art would encourage its students to become clones of one
>> another instead of developing their individual strengths and weaknesses ?
>> (even sports karateka know better than that)
>
>So now you admit that this is not so!!
>
I have nothing against combat sports. My beef is with some of the worst
practices of so called trad. Karate. Sports karate is a different ball
game. But in the trad karate I have seen everyone has to conform to some
ideal instead of working on individual differences. So if that one sports
karate principle was adopted, it would probably lead to 100 % improvement.
>
>> 6. What martial art would concentrate solely on one conditioning method
>> (local muscle stamina ie. press ups, sit ups etc) and ignore weights,
>> aerobic and cardiovascular training, flexibility not to mention
>traditional
>> Chinese methods from which it originally derived?
>>
>
>Again I don't know as I've never been taught or learned this stuff this
way.
>Are you sure you aren't smoking something???
>.........Tom............
>
As I said I am targetting the worst.
And sometimes I wish I was on stuff when you see some of the crap that
passes for martial arts in this part of the world.
Richard
>
>
>
storys
>
> Actually I am coming at this not from free style but from the viewpoint of
> being ultra traditional
Any time you hear ultra or fundamental alarm bells should go off in your
head. Traditional is is only 50 or so years old.
> ie. I believe that Karate is a form of kung fu and
> should be treated as such although there were some indigenous development
in
> certain styles in Okinawa.
>
Yes there were and Goju is one and Shorin Ryu is another Tomari Ryu is yet
another. what is your point?
>
> The problem is that the only Karate that I have seen in the UK is the high
> school variety.
>
Then feel free to comment on the UK high school varieties & make sure to
leave the rest alone. Know also that not all high school karate is of this
type. My own instructor teaches mini classes or courses in the highschools
of this area. What they get will never make them an expert, but what they
get is good wholesome karate. If they want more then they come to the dojo
and take the full course. By your own admission anything else you say is at
the very least suspect an most probably distorted beyond belief.
>
> I would go even further than this and say that any kata technique can be
> applied in a wide variety of ways not just blocking and striking but
> grappling, throwing, groundwork , weapons etc
>
Not necessarily. It wouold be hard to interpret the opening of Sanseru for
example as anything but a strike or a block & I think strike would get the
nod from most. Any move in a kata has at least three levels of bunkai to it.
Yes weapons can be brought in. Yes grappling is part of it. The first
backward moves of Seyuchin for example are what I like to term fireman
throws.
>
> Again, in the UK, there seems to be very little leeway at least in the
trad.
> clubs.
>
See your remark above re what you have seen. How are you able to make this
generalization from what you have seen?
>
> Sorry, I am studying with a teacher who has been to China and this is
true.
> Certainly it is true for self defence and dojo sparring - occasionally the
> sports boys get a little out of hand :-).
>
Only in your deluded mind. Like I said I'm not touching this one. I see a
mire in the moor at least twenty pages of typing deep and I want no part of
it. I suggest you hi thee to a real teacher & find out what the moves are
and how to apply them. Ask about Bunkai and waza!
> >
> >Other methods can be used. My art, Goju, uses Sanchin in so many
different
> >forms as to be unbelievable. Some are believed harmfull yes. If that's
the
> >case DON'T DO IT THAT WAY!!!! Sounds simple enough. Other forms of Goju
do
> >it differently more like the way of Sam Chien. This is virtually the same
> as
> >the Chinese "Five Ancestor Fist " form so I have to say that even
> >traditionalists do do it the Chinese way. No not all but some.
>
>
> The main problem with Sanchin training is the vasalva manoeuvre ie.
holding
> the breathing while dynamically tensing the muscles. This puts massive
> pressure on the CV system. Personally, I have ceased to use Sanchin for
> condition and utilise internal power qigong instead which are compatible
> with the system and with the hojo undo of Goju.
>
Note above I said "OTHER METHODS CAN BE USED. MY ART GOJU USES SANCHIN IN SO
MANY DIFFERENT WAYS AS TO BE UNBELIEVABLE. Yes some do do it exactly as you
describe. Others do not. Or are you claiming on the basis of watching some
high School kids such expertise as to be able to tell Goju people how they
do things??? ( or maybe how they should if they are Goju )
>
> >
> >> 5. Chinese body dynamics have disappeared
> >
> >Have a boo sometime at a high Dan ranked Goju player and then at a high
> >ranked White Crane player doing the same or a related form. Then come
back
> &
> >tell me if you can still say this.
> >
>
> I have seen a high ranked goju player and while what he was doing was
> externally similar to the crane player, internally it was completely
wrong.
You can see internals from an audience position????? Wow you gotta be dan99
or better. No it probably wasn't exactly as White Crane but then it isn't
White Crane. It is however very very similar
>Moreover their kata are too jerky and show
> too much power. (I have a video of Morio Higaonna and he demonstrates
these
> poor karacteristics (sorry couldn't resist the pun) to a tee despite the
> fact that some of his stuff is quite good.
>
Too much power? Jerky? Are you sure it was Higaonna? My own instructor is a
student of his. If this is the case he is doing the katas all wrong and
teaching them wrongly
> IMO techniques should be light, soft, flowing and power should be
> practically invisible when applied at the point of contact.
Your opinion only! Based on definciencies found in Highschool students! I
can make power invisible. ( I'm NOT high ranked ) problem is that when I do
my opponent doesn't fall down but hits me back with non-invisible power & it
hurts!
>
> Yes, the Japanese are that dumb. For example, they continue to consume
> white rice by the ton despite the fact it gives them stomach cancer
(though
> we can talk). As for adapting things to their society, they neatly
adapted
> 19th century nationalism into 20th century imperialism and it blew up in
> their face. And as for a Japanese Karateka going up anyone half competent
> in Kung Fu in a real fight, well I would like to know what flowers he
wants
> put on his grave.
>
Ah now it comes out..... Simple rank stinky predjudice of the "MY SENSEI CAN
WHOP YOUR SENSEI'S BUTT" I'm just not interested in this type of arguement.
Hells bells one of the karateka from my own school took a gold a few years
back in the kung-fu kata division. Guess he'd better give it back before
they come after him eh? BTW this event was the WKA worlds.
> Studying two styles is a good idea done this way.
>
> But my point is that Karate is Chinese with some supplementary stuff from
> Okinawan Ti. To say that 100 years of development takes away from 300 or
> even 1000 years of cultural origination seems completely idiotic. Sorry
:-)
>
I think you mean Okinawan Te not ti. Now as far as development goes you
start after the 300 or whatever number you like & then you build. Hopefully
you get rid of the old ossified parts & you don't throw out the baby with
the bath water. You are looking at this ass backwards. You don't take a
system, delete it's deveopment and then start over and have any ancestry
from it. You take it as you found it. You adapt it to fit your society and
you move on. You save whatever strikes you as gold and you then try to add
more or refine what is there. The Chinese have NO monopoly on good fighting
or bad for that matter. Remember they lost the boxer rebellion. they had
failed to keep up with the times. The British hadn't. All the Kung-fu,
Whushu skills in the world meant nothing under the conditions them
obtaining. The British fort a martial war. Maximum damage to the
enemy....Minimum damage to self.
> >So do we. Forms teach somethings but are not suposed to teach the actual
> >moves used in fighting.
> >
>
> Sorry, but forms are meant to teach you the actual moves in fighting if in
a
> somewhat idealised way. ie. they show the perfect way to do the move
whereas
> in a fight you have to go with the flow and do the move slightly
imperfectly
> to bring it off but it should be wholly recognisable.
>
You say you want answers but your predjudices won't let you see the answer
when it is presented. Read what I wrote above. It is the truth. If you can't
see it or won't believe it then I can't help you. I think you need to get
out more.
>
> You should see our resident 7th Dan in Wado ,a more arthritic guy you
never
> met.
>
Ever hear of natural predispositions??? YOur seventh dan may just be one of
these. I've met older karateka who are anything but arthritic. You are
taking one case & making it general. If you aren't happy with your dojo
leave and find a better one!
> >> 5. What martial art would encourage its students to become clones of
one
> >> another instead of developing their individual strengths and weaknesses
?
> >> (even sports karateka know better than that)
> >
> >So now you admit that this is not so!!
> >
>
> I have nothing against combat sports. My beef is with some of the worst
> practices of so called trad. Karate. Sports karate is a different ball
> game. But in the trad karate I have seen everyone has to conform to some
> ideal instead of working on individual differences. So if that one sports
> karate principle was adopted, it would probably lead to 100 % improvement.
>
Heh? You missed the point entirely. Traditional karate does let or encourage
those people to develop their own strengths. Gojun Myiagi was famous for
this. He didn't even require everyone to learn all the kata. If he felt that
a kata wasn't going to be useful for a given person then he simply didn't
teach that kata to that person. Or are you saying that Mr. Myiagi isn't
traditional enough?
>
> As I said I am targetting the worst.
>
> And sometimes I wish I was on stuff when you see some of the crap that
> passes for martial arts in this part of the world.
Then change things. The Martial arts are full of examples of this. Myiagi is
one Ushiba is another Kano yet another one. You don't like what you
see....Change what you see. Change it yourself if need be.
........Tom........
Matt Harrell
Oops. The two of you who pointed this out are correct. I guess I
should read my own web page more often! My own research a while ago
showed me this, but since that time I had forgotten that more subtle
point.
storys
"George Wenzel" <gwe...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message >
> If you think it's crap, then don't do it. It's as simple as that. A
> fundamental lesson of the martial arts is humility and tolerance for
> other people's beliefs and opinions. I do not believe you have learned
> that lesson, and I hope that your instructor teaches it to you sometime
> soon.
>
Good post George! You said many things that I said in a different way which
I can hope means that he will get it. You've also said other things which
will round out things. ( I agreed with all you said BTW ) Bottom line Good
post!
........Tom..........
richardmcevoy
George Wenzel wrote in message ...
>In article <38932...@news2.vip.uk.com>, richar...@breathemail.net
>says...
>>Actually I am coming at this not from free style but from the viewpoint of
>>being ultra traditional ie. I believe that Karate is a form of kung fu and
>>should be treated as such although there were some indigenous development
in
>>certain styles in Okinawa.
>
>martial arts are forms of Greco-Roman wrestling? Most martial arts (if
>you go back far enough) can be traced back to that era.
>
There is a specific and valid historical reason for going back that 100
years or so which is that Karate as adopted into mainland Japanese culture
became a form of physical culture geared to training young people to engage
in militaristic and imperialistic type thinking. This also happened on
Okinawa itself and even top Okinawan masters who objected to this process
were brought into line by the Dai Nippon Butokai or found themselves beyond
the political and social pail. This also occurred to various budo
practitioners who objected to the government's fascist based adaptation of
neo confucianist ideals to imperialistic and commercial ends. Morihei
Ueshiba was the most famous victim of this due to his unpopular anti war
stance and found his aikido and the Omo sect to which he belonged subject to
political suppression.
This was accompanied by a deliberate effort to rid Karate of its Chinese
heritage to the extent that the Okinawans mindful of the proprieties of
their political suboordination to the Japanese mainland reinvented the
history of the art, presenting it as an indigenous creation of peasants
nobly engaged in combat against their suppressors.
The result was that Karate's essentially Chinese character was stripped
away and the art form
bowdlerised of its advanced combative skills.
This process continued in a slightly different form post war
when Karate was converted by the Japanese to being a combat sport (and not a
very good one IMO) leading to a further watering down of the combat aspects
of the sport.
In other words, this adoption and adaptation of Karate was not motivated by
the earnest desire to learn a new combat form or even to understand an
aspect of Chinese/Okinawan heritage but by an ideological drive to make all
martial arts in Japan conform to a model which was geared to political ends
not martial ones. As a result Karate was cut off from its roots.
If the adaptation had had a martial purpose I would probably have an
entirely different opinion of it and whether the resulting synthesis of
Japanese and Chinese martial ideas worked. But since it was ideologically
and politically motiviated, I can only say that it did nothing for martial
progress whatsoever unless you count the efforts of a few, highly motivated
and exceptional individuals who saw past the bullshit and sought the truth.
Karate of course has since travelled worldwide and there are individuals who
again have got past the fascist based militaristic style teaching and homed
in on the truth both oriental and otherwise. I do not discount their
efforts and if you are being taught by them you are very lucky indeed.
However, I have also corresponded with Karateka in both the US and UK who
recognise the severe historical and cultural trauma that the art underwent
and the serious martial and physical health problems which certain
'traditional' training practices perpetuate ad infinitum.
>My point is this: Karate is quite clearly significantly different from
>Kung Fu, just as Tae Kwon Do is significantly different from Karate.
My point is that Karate should not be clearly different from Kung Fu and as
for Tae Kwon Do, its traditional katas are clearly hardly distinguishable
from Shotokan's early forms.
Whatever its style, Kung Fu is recognisably Chinese and Karate should be
recognisably Chinese/Okinawan not so cut off from its root that it fails
even this test. Consider the Okinawan saying 'The best place to learn
martial arts is in China.' This is a part of Karate culture which has been
deliberately suppressed and forgotten.
>That's why they're considered to be different martial arts that have
>certain similarities. All martial arts are similar to a certain extent,
>but they have their differences, and that's what makes them interesting.
There is such a thing as 'family' resemblance and this instance it is a
matter of direct descent. Unfortunately, the children have done everything
possible to disavow themselves of resemblance to the father including
radical plastic surgery, amputation and in some cases castration.
>Trying to say that "Zoo-Kai is just the same as Fubu-Ryu" doesn't really
>advance an argument very much, especially if the two styles are
>considerably different from one another.
>
Please distinguish style and art. I do the art of Karate in a style and
that art is itself a form of the family of Southern Shaolin Kung Fu. But it
is
very different from the art of Aiki Ju Jitsu which is from a completely
different family. Style is an individualistic
thing. Goju-ryu is Myagi Chojun's style of Shorei-ryu which was Kanryo
Higanonna's style of Nanpai Shaolin Kung Fu, mainly Whooping Crane which was
part of the Ru Family tradition and included aspects of Pakua and Hsing I
stemming from Dong I Chuan.
In one sense, all I am doing is going back to the roots of my art and
discovering that some of the elements that have been discarded are in fact
damn good stuff and a lot better than some training methods I have witnessed
or heard others describe today.
Moreover, I would say the same of modern weights training which I consider
to be an excellent supplement to the art and better than some of the
traditional hojo undo and some of the Chinese methods of conditioning.
>>The problem is that the only Karate that I have seen in the UK is the high
>>school variety.
>
>I think that the problem you're facing is that you believe that the
>Karate you've been exposed to is reflective of all Karate practiced
>around the world. You may want to entertain the possibility that your
>opinions are based on the minority, not the majority, of Karate training
>styles.
>
This is a fair point but in 14 years I have been around the block a couple
of times. There are major problems with Karate in this country. And from
what others I have corresponded with on the Internet have said, similar
problems exist in other parts of the world with the same martial art.
>>Again, in the UK, there seems to be very little leeway at least in the
trad.
>>clubs.
>
>Again, why do you make the argument against all "Traditional Karate"
>schools when your reference point consists entirely of schools in one
>small island country?
>
With 52 million inhabitants and visitors from all over the world who present
themselves as masters and fail to show anything new.
>>>> 3. There is no connection between sports sparring and kata moves or
kata
>>>> moves and self defence. In Chinese systems, the kata moves are also
the
>>>> sports moves and are also the self defence moves.
>>>I'm not going to touch this one. If you actually believe this there is
>>>little if any hope for you. Suffice it to say you aren't even in the
right
>>>country let alone the right city or ballpark.
>>
>>Sorry, I am studying with a teacher who has been to China and this is
true.
>
>I fail to see the logical connection here. You make a statement about
>Karate (the part about "no connection" and then you say it's true because
>you study with a teacher (presumably Kung Fu) who has been to China.
>What am I missing?
Chinese forms contain the fighting moves of the arts and these are reflected
in the sparring methods in the training halls and to a greater or lesser
extent in the full contact fighting competitions in the country. In
contrast, the descendant art of Karate while having identical forms fails to
use those moves in any obviously recognisable way in sparring except for the
most basic of techniques such as kick and punch.
Can you just from the kata demonstrate recognisable technical applications
for any and all fighting circumstances - sitting, standing, lying down,
kneeling, using weapons - in a realistic fashion? Can you utilise those
same techniques in your free sparring or in fighting drills aimed at self
defence? And I am not just talking about fixed step sparring - I mean all
sparring forms and drills ! Can you mix it up with these techniques and
applications ?
If you can, you have my hand, for I have seen very very few teach it this
way and mostly in Kung Fu classes?
BTW this isn't Kung Fu good, Karate bad. Rather I am trying to say that,
for example, in TCC I have a 300 to 400 year history to call on of training
methods, cultural knowledge, strategy, tactics etc etc etc to call upon so
that when I train someone in that art I can look for aspects of it which
suit them. Whereas because Karate is cut off at the root, that 300 year
history of that art ceases to be available to me and moreover the recent
history cripples the very aim of any martial art to teach people to fight
and through learning to fight to be healthier and better adjusted human
beings.
>
>>I have seen a high ranked goju player and while what he was doing was
>>externally similar to the crane player, internally it was completely
wrong.
>
>I find it odd that you are arbitrarily saying that things are "right" or
>"wrong". You're judging other people by your own standards; a form of
>martial art ethnocentrism.
>
>>Moreover their kata are too jerky and show too much power.
>
>Again, based on _your_ standards. By their standards the kata may be
>done perfectly. Different styles and different instructors interpret
>things differently. Things can be different without being "better" or
>"worse".
>
Actually, I am not basing this on my standards but on my understanding of
the teaching of late 19th and early 20th century masters, some of whom
survived until the mid to late 80s on Okinawa and had fundamental criticisms
of the modern Karate of the younger generations. To quote a few examples,
Yuchoku Higa, Shorin-ryu, believed that Karate is 'soft', that the 'hard' is
all right for youngsters but not for those of mature age (this fits in with
Chinese thinking BTW). Actually the softw contains hard and is represented
by a circle with dots around the circumference. The circle represents the
soft, the dots the hard.
Shinsuke Taneshima, Tozan-ryu. 'never breathe forcefully as in dynamic
tension Sanchin.'
Chozo Nakama, Shorin-ryu, Karate's intrinsic energy (found through relaxing
initially and then learning to focus at key points) should keep the body in
'relaxed tension'.
Kenko Nakaima, Ryuei-ryu, insisted that kata, like their exponents, should
grow more pliant with age.
Unfortunately, these teachers were placed on a superhuman pedestal by their
successors and their sage advice all but ignored in the ongoing drive to
Japanise the art.
Source: Okinawan Karate (2nd Edition), Mark Bishop
>You are certainly free to decide for yourself what you consider to be
>"good" or "bad" for your own training. You don't, IMHO, have the right
>to judge all martial arts based on your (somewhat limited) experience.
>
IMHO you do not have the right to tell what I should or what I should not
judge. You do however have the right to present counter evidence to any
judgement I make so that I may correct and refine my judgements.
I must also decide for my students what is good or bad. And I certainly
believe that it is possible to research the area of what is good or bad and
come to some positive conclusions, regardless of experience, through
accurate observation and analysis ie. on the whole is this training method,
traditional or modern, good or bad for the majority of people who do it in
terms of imparting combat effectiveness and promoting good mental and
physical conditioning.
>>IMO techniques should be light, soft, flowing and power should be
>>practically invisible when applied at the point of contact.
>
>IMHO techniques should demonstrate maximum power at the point of contact,
>with full follow-through past the contact point. Am I right? No; that's
>only my opinion. I don't think that other people's techniques are
>"wrong" because I happen to disagree with them.
>
Which is one reason why I said IMO. However, if you are unloading full
power against mid air then you are almost certainly indulging in poor
practicen and causing extreme long term trauma to your joints. My remarks
BTW apply mainly to kata performance. In kumite, you are quite right, power
must be sharply applied through the point of contact when it occurs.
>>Yes, the Japanese are that dumb.
>
>I'd suggest that you curb your racism. You have made some valid points,
>but this kind of suggestion is likely to land you in my (and other
>peoples') killfiles.
>
Sorry, but you seemed to be highly uncritical of Japanese culture. If I had
said Americans eat tonnes of junk food and this is a contributory factor in
the high levels of cardiovascular disease in that country, would you have
disagreed ? NO. But at least Americans know that. The information was
deliberately suppressed by the Japanese authorities for a considerable
period of time.
>>And as for a Japanese Karateka going up anyone half competent
>>in Kung Fu in a real fight, well I would like to know what flowers he
wants
>>put on his grave.
>
>I think that this kind of "my style is better than your style" argument
>leads nowhere but to flame wars. If you want to drone on about this
>crap, please do so in rec.martial-arts, where it seems to be quite
>prevalent.
>
This is not my style is better than your style because both karate and kung
fu are essentially the same arts but rather my training methods are more
complete and rounded than your training methods due to an interruption in
transmission. Karate training is not wrong but it only goes half the
course. Lau Gar for example uses stop/start training for juniors and
beginners but then brings in a more flowing form of performing the art.
Karate has got arrested at the junior development stage.
>>But my point is that Karate is Chinese with some supplementary stuff from
>>Okinawan Ti.
>
>Fine. You've repeated this point ad nauseum. You've also revealed
>(IMHO) that your reasoning for criticizing karate is that you bear racist
>attitudes toward the Japanese. Not a good basis for an opinion, IMO.
>
There is a difference between racism (which implies I hate a person due to
the colour of their skin or the set of their eyes) and historical and
cultural analysis which results in a negative judgement of certain aspects
of a culture and should also lead to a positive judgement of other aspects.
For example, even Nazi Germany had its good points in that it provided a
sense of direction for a lost nation but equally it had its bad points.
Unfortunately, the influence of Japanese culture and history on Karate was
mainly bad. Good points were promotion of Karate world wide and high degree
of organisation.
>>To say that 100 years of development takes away from 300 or
>>even 1000 years of cultural origination seems completely idiotic. Sorry
:-)
>
>I think that the time-frame is irrelevant. Karate, as it is taught in
>most places today, is not a "Chinese" art. It is an art that reflects
>the learnings of those who teach it, which currently includes people from
>pretty much every country out there. The same, BTW, can be said for Kung
>Fu.
Which is a sad loss for the teacher and the teachee. Foreign martial arts
are an ideal vehicle for delving into the culture of another country and
coming to understand it better thus widening one's experience of the human
condition.
>
>>Sorry, but forms are meant to teach you the actual moves in fighting if in
a
>>somewhat idealised way.
>
>They are intended for that to a certain extent, yes. They also teach
>other things.
>
Like ????
>>You should see our resident 7th Dan in Wado ,a more arthritic guy you
never
>>met.
>
>I've seen a 9th Dan in Wado (Sensei Masaru Shintani) train and he, at 70+
>years old, can move quicker than most 25 year-old karateka that I train
>with (myself included).
>
>You're using a single person as a reference point and assuming that
>person represents the whole. So what if one Wado practitioner has
>developed Arthritis? If a high-level Kung Fu practitioner developed
>Cancer would you suddenly stop training for fear of tumors?
>
Only if the experienced repeated an observable number of times.
Unfortunately, our 7th dan is reproducing his arthritis in his students. I
am glad that your teacher is much better.
>>I have nothing against combat sports. My beef is with some of the worst
>>practices of so called trad. Karate.
>
>Your beef is with certain practices taught in certain clubs in a single
>small country. The clubs you've trained in do not represent "Traditional
>Karate" and definitely do not represent Karate as a whole.
>
Now who is being racist ????
>>But in the trad karate I have seen everyone has to conform to some
>>ideal instead of working on individual differences.
>
>You indicated that you've trained in _two_ karate styles. Presumably,
>you've trained in perhaps 2-3 Karate clubs. Why do you think that what
>is taught in these clubs will be the same as what is taught in the
>thousands of other clubs around the world?
Duh because although I have trained in a limited number of clubs I have
probably witnessed at least 50 others nevermind information gleaned from
books, magazines, the Internet, all of which is more or less convincing me
that Karate has lost touch with its roots and that this tends to cause
fundamental flaws in the art particularly at advanced levels.
You've hardly drawn a
>representative sample.
>
>>As I said I am targetting the worst.
>
>You're criticizing what YOU perceive to be the worst in a small minority
>of the Karate clubs in the world, and generalizing to every "Traditional
>Karate" club in the world. That's where your argument fails
>Why do you think that the "Traditional Karate" you've seen is the same as
>the "Traditional Karate" the rest of the world practices? As has already
>been stated, numerous "Traditional Karate" clubs (mine included) do not
>partake in most of the practices you refer to.
>
>>And sometimes I wish I was on stuff when you see some of the crap that
>>passes for martial arts in this part of the world.
>
>If you think it's crap, then don't do it. It's as simple as that. A
>fundamental lesson of the martial arts is humility and tolerance for
>other people's beliefs and opinions. I do not believe you have learned
>that lesson, and I hope that your instructor teaches it to you sometime
>soon.
Another fundamental lesson of the MAs is the recognition of bullshit when
you smell it !
There is a hell of a difference between seeing a training method,
understanding it and going 'Yes that works but I wouldn't use it personally
or for my students' and on the other hand seeing a training method,
understanding it and going ' That is fundamentally flawed'. Even more so
when you go into the history of the flawed method and find that with the
addition of one or two elements, it becomes an excellent training method for
teaching people to fight.
This is what I have found to be true of Karate Kata. As currently taught in
many if not all clubs with start/stop methods, with separation of block and
counter, with rigid interpretation of moves etc, with overpowerful strikes
to midair etc they are flawed. Once you flow the movements together,
soften the performance and freely interpret the techniques they become an
excellent source of fighting material.
The rest of the argument is about how kata got to the bad state they are in.
It is a matter of historical interpretation.
Regards
Richard McEvoy
BA Hons 2/1 Modern and Economic History
MSc Computer Science
Member of the British Computer Society
{apparently able to spout irrelevant qualifications too}
Willem
George Wenzel heeft geschreven in bericht ...
richardmcevoy
Martial arts is not about mealy mouthed humility but about being humble.
Being humble is a question of proper measurement of oneself and even more of
one's goals, that they should be challenging but achievable. If I have an
opinion that certain practices get in my way and indeed get in the way of
others and cry foul on them, that is not arrogance, but determination.
Karate has many sacred cows, more so than most arts. I am just trying to
blow the whistle on the few that I have spotted and which I think are
pervasive. It would be nice to learn for sure as some are claiming that
they are not as pervasive as I have thought.
However, the quality of thinking behind some of the replies gives me cause
to doubt this.
Richard
Willem wrote in message <#BZ0Vb3a$GA.285@net003s>...
richardmcevoy
George Wenzel wrote in message ...
>says...
>>There is a specific and valid historical reason for going back that 100
>>years or so which is that Karate as adopted into mainland Japanese culture
>>became a form of physical culture geared to training young people to
engage
>>in militaristic and imperialistic type thinking.
>
>current Kung Fu. The two are substantially different martial arts, with
>substantially different foci. Comparing one based on the standards of
>the other does not make for a valid comparison.
>
Right let us look at this statement.
Karate is not the same as Kung Fu.
Now, if most Karate originated as I believe and most serious researchers
agree in the Chinese Southern Shaolin Schools of the late 19th century, that
means that about 100 or so years have passed since the main transmission
period. In terms of generations of teachers, about 4 teachers back.
Now I accept that in that period there would be some natural drift away from
the original styles. Moreover, it is perfectly feasible to also accept that
some individuals would attempt, successfully or otherwise, to produce a
synthesis of Japanese and Chinese martial arts. leading to something more
different again.
Done for martial/combative reasons this to my mind would have been a
perfectly natural and indeed feasible path for Karate to follow.
However, as I have indicated elsewhere, what actually happened was an
ideologically and politically motivated effort to disguise the origins of
the art and to transform it into a means of encouraging a 'military mind' in
Japan's youth. It was a form of physical culture for both Japanese youth and
soldiers. But the aspects that actually made a form of combat were bypassed
by the rigours of performing kihon in the evil practise known as shigoki.
Today, post war, as you have described, Japanese Karate is not practised
with combat in mind but to develop the spirit or else as a sport But
'martial' implies 'war' or 'fighting'. If the aim is not combat, it is not
war like. If the aim is combat sport, it is not fighting.
Of course you may argue that combat is secondary to spiritual development
but here I think you are following prone to a self deception common in the
West which is to say that somehow combat development and spiritual
development can be separated whereas competence in one indicates achievement
in the other.
'enlightment' means to see clearly. You must see that if you choose the
discipline of learning to fight in order to achieve enlightenment, that any
sloppiness either in quality or quantity will take away from that discipline
and therefore take away from enlightenment.
>Things that are "right" in a Kung Fu school may very well be viewed as
>"wrong" as Karate practitioners, and vice versa.
>
>I train under an instructor who teaches that ALL martial arts have
>validity - none are "better" or "worse" than one another, but there are
>certainly "better" and "worse" instructors.
>
>>The result was that Karate's essentially Chinese character was stripped
>>away and the art form bowdlerised of its advanced combative skills.
>
>But, of course, you consider the "advanced combative skills" of Karate to
>be something taken out of Kung Fu but not inherent in Karate.
Duh, no I consider that the advanced combat skills are not being taught as
they should be.
>Considering that self-defense is probably the least important part of the
>martial arts today, why is there such a focus on it?
>
see above.
>>This process continued in a slightly different form post war
>>when Karate was converted by the Japanese to being a combat sport (and not
a
>>very good one IMO) leading to a further watering down of the combat
aspects
>>of the sport.
>
>If you don't like the way Karate is taught, you are totally welcome to
>train in another art (which you have). That doesn't give you the right
>to proclaim that something practiced by many people is "watered down".
>
Just because many people practice it does not mean that it is not watered
down and as for rights, I believe that free speech is a right and that the
majority have no right to suppress the opinions of individuals. And finally
I dont like the way Karate is taught because I believe a lot of people are
utterly deceived by its claims of effectiveness, where none exists.
>>In other words, this adoption and adaptation of Karate was not motivated
by
>>the earnest desire to learn a new combat form or even to understand an
>>aspect of Chinese/Okinawan heritage but by an ideological drive to make
all
>>martial arts in Japan conform to a model which was geared to political
ends
>>not martial ones.
>
>This is a very debatable point. While I do not doubt that political
>considerations played a part, I definitely doubt that was the only reason
>Karate was changed when adopted by the Japanese.
>
Read the history of the Dai Nippon Butokai before you make this claim.
Patrick McCarthy summarises it in the Bubishi.
>>If the adaptation had had a martial purpose
>
>You haven't been reading what I have been writing. Karate _is_ a martial
>art, but its goal/purpose is _not_ a martial one.
>
A martial art without a martial aim. A contradiction in terms.
>>My point is that Karate should not be clearly different from Kung Fu
>
>Indeed. In your opinion, all Karate schools should take down the
>"karate" sign outside, replace it with "kung fu", and start teaching Kung
>Fu. If I wanted to train in Kung fu, there is a class that runs the same
>time as my karate class only 25 feet away.
>
No they should start teaching their Karate in a Kung Fu like manner. i.e.
while the current training going on is fine for beginners and children, it
needs to be succeeded by softer methods and greater emphasis on correct
dynamics, good conditioning, and grappling, throwing and pressure point
work. It also needs a greater focus on individual development which should
be reflected in the grading syllabuses e.g kata learning should be optional
beyond a basic core.
>>Whatever its style, Kung Fu is recognisably Chinese and Karate should be
>>recognisably Chinese/Okinawan not so cut off from its root that it fails
>>even this test.
>
>Different styles of karate will be similar or more different when
>compared to Kung Fu (or Judo, or TKD, etc) depending on the instructor
>and history of the style. I don't believe that makes certain styles more
>"watered down" than others.
>
It does when the similarity is a similarity to junior training methods but
the art fails to move beyond those and teach the senior training methods.
>Saying that something closer to Kung Fu is more "pure" and something more
>different is "watered down" implies a value judgement - you're saying,
>essentially, "Kung Fu good, Karate bad". A pointless argument, IMHO.
>
>>Consider the Okinawan saying 'The best place to learn
>>martial arts is in China.' This is a part of Karate culture which has
been
>>deliberately suppressed and forgotten.
>
>And how, perchance, did you discover this gem of martial teaching? I
>find it hard that the Okinawans would believe that martial arts should
>best be learned in a foreign country.
>
Shoshin Nagamine 'The Essence of Okinawan Kung Fu'
>>In one sense, all I am doing is going back to the roots of my art and
>>discovering that some of the elements that have been discarded are in fact
>>damn good stuff and a lot better than some training methods I have
witnessed
>>or heard others describe today.
>
>And that's a Good Thing. I think the fact that you now say that Karate
>is "watered down" indicates that you haven't learned the tolerance and
>respect for other people's learnings that should go hand-in-hand with a
>modern martial artist.
>
I am saying Karate is watered down because the methods I have discovered
indicate a training gap in Karate's syllabus. If they were merely
substitute methods it would be a different matter. As for tolerance and
respect, they don't come into the equation as we are not addressing other
people but a deficient training system.
>>Can you just from the kata demonstrate recognisable technical applications
>>for any and all fighting circumstances - sitting, standing, lying down,
>>kneeling, using weapons - in a realistic fashion?
>
>As I've said before, katas are not meant to be truly realistic, because
>they are choreographed fights without a partner. It's hard to do one-
>person grappling, for example. Thus, I will nod debate this point
>further. There is a fundamental difference in how forms are viewed
>within Kung Fu and within Karate - I think that's fairly obvious.
>
While I agree that a kata cannot exactly replicate the conditions of a
fight, nevertheless if the techniques are not even being used at all as in
sports sparring then there is clearly no connection between kata and kumite
and for the art to be consistent, there should be.
>>BTW this isn't Kung Fu good, Karate bad.
>
>Sorry, but it clearly is. If you're going to make the point (however
>wrong it may be), I would expect you to stand behind it. Now you're
>getting wishy-washy.
>
A is not non-A. If I say that Kung Fu is good and Karate is bad yet also
maintain that Karate is Kung Fu I am clearly contradicting myself. However,
if I say that Karate is good up to a point but then clearly deficient in its
training practices compared with its mother art of Kung Fu, I am not
contradicting myself nor setting the two in opposition. Rather I am saying
that knowledge of one will complement and correct the deficiencies of
knowledge of the other. An entirely different proposition.
>>Whereas because Karate is cut off at the root, that 300 year
>>history of that art ceases to be available to me and moreover the recent
>>history cripples the very aim of any martial art to teach people to fight
>>and through learning to fight to be healthier and better adjusted human
>>beings.
>
>The point, however, is that millions of people have learned to be more
>humble, decent human beings while training in "traditional", "watered-
>down" karate. The art is hardly crippled.
>
But have they learned to fight? If not, then the art is clearly crippled.
>>Yuchoku Higa, Shorin-ryu, believed that Karate is 'soft', that the 'hard'
is
>>all right for youngsters but not for those of mature age (this fits in
with
>>Chinese thinking BTW).
>
>Karate can be both soft and hard, depending on who is teaching it and
>their interpretations. Most karateka adopt softer techniques as they age
>and mature.
Perhaps, soft is the wrong word. Pliant would be a better. Like a springy
rubber ball that keeps bouncing back at applied force.
And do karateka really adopt softer techniques as they age and mature. I
have yet to see it.
>
>>Shinsuke Taneshima, Tozan-ryu. 'never breathe forcefully as in dynamic
>>tension Sanchin.'
>
>I can't really comment on this; our club doesn't practice Sanchin.
>
>>Chozo Nakama, Shorin-ryu, Karate's intrinsic energy (found through
relaxing
>>initially and then learning to focus at key points) should keep the body
in
>>'relaxed tension'.
>
>My instructor has repeatedly stated this point. In our club, people are
>expected to be totally relaxed except when making contact.
>
And do they do it and does he do it?
>>Unfortunately, these teachers were placed on a superhuman pedestal by
their
>>successors and their sage advice all but ignored in the ongoing drive to
>>Japanise the art.
>
>This may have happened in certain schools, but I believe they are by far
>in the minority.
>
>>IMHO you do not have the right to tell what I should or what I should not
>>judge.
>
>Let's put it this way: Judge other people all you'd like, but be aware
>that you reveal your agenda whenever you do so.
>
Fair enough !
>>You do however have the right to present counter evidence to any
>>judgement I make so that I may correct and refine my judgements.
>
>I can only speak from the perspective of one karate organization, so I'll
>admit that my experience is limited in that sense. But, I have talked
>with many other karateka from other styles and found that they generally
>train quite similarly to the training in our club, which is in direct
>opposition to what you describe as "traditional karate". And yes, our
>club focuses on the "traditional" aspects of the art.
>
>>I must also decide for my students what is good or bad. And I certainly
>>believe that it is possible to research the area of what is good or bad
and
>>come to some positive conclusions, regardless of experience, through
>>accurate observation and analysis ie. on the whole is this training
method,
>>traditional or modern, good or bad for the majority of people who do it in
>>terms of imparting combat effectiveness and promoting good mental and
>>physical conditioning.
>
>If you want to focus on combat effectiveness, give your students guns and
>teach them quick-draw techniques and good marksmanship. Far more
>effective in combat than unarmed techniques.
>
No I wish to focus on self improvement via training in combat effectiveness
utilising hand to hand and manual non ballistic weaponry.
>>Which is one reason why I said IMO. However, if you are unloading full
>>power against mid air then you are almost certainly indulging in poor
>>practicen and causing extreme long term trauma to your joints.
>
>Not if you know what you are doing and maintain tension in the joints so
>as to prevent hyperextension. Our club's founder has been training for
>almost 25 years and has yet to develop any of this "long term trauma" you
>refer to.
>
Just wait another 10 years. Even maintaining tension you are still shocking
the joints and BTW I thought you guys were relaxed except at the point of
contact. If you are anticipating the shock of a punch to mid air on the
joints you cannot be relaxed.
>>The information was
>>deliberately suppressed by the Japanese authorities for a considerable
>>period of time.
>
>And based on a political move you consider the Japanese to be (in your
>words) "dumb"??
>
No I was just demonstrating that the Japanese (like the rest of us) have no
monopoly on stupidity.
>>This is not my style is better than your style because both karate and
kung
>>fu are essentially the same arts but rather my training methods are more
>>complete and rounded than your training methods due to an interruption in
>>transmission.
>
>Again, you're making limited judgements based on what training you've
>seen. I find it odd that you criticize my training methods yet you have
>not seen a single club within our organization, nor have you ever trained
>with us.
>
And I find it odd that you are defending bad practice, even if it not in
your own club. I also find it strange that you are not interested in mining
the rich seam of information that is Karate's history.
>As I said above, I cannot conclusively say that other karate schools
>employ the same training methods as our club does, but I can say that the
>clubs I have seen have _all_ employed very similar methods.
>
>>There is a difference between racism (which implies I hate a person due to
>>the colour of their skin or the set of their eyes) and historical and
>>cultural analysis which results in a negative judgement of certain aspects
>>of a culture
>
>You're trying to make excuses for yourself. You made the statement that
>Japanese people are "dumb". That sounds like racism to me, not a
>"historical and cultural analysis".
>
There is a difference between saying the Japanese can be that dumb and that
they are dumb per se. Americans can be dumb, British can be dumb, Navajo can
be dumb. Any ethnic group in the whole world can be dumb.
>>For example, even Nazi Germany had its good points in that it provided a
>>sense of direction for a lost nation but equally it had its bad points.
>
>I don't think the bad points equalled the good points. To say so is to
>do a disservice to the lives lost in internment camps.
>
Yes. And to say that the Japanese influence on Karate was good is to
discredit the 19th century Okinawans who brought Kung Fu to Okinawa and
taught it as such.
>>Unfortunately, the influence of Japanese culture and history on Karate was
>>mainly bad.
>
>You're basing that on your evaluation of the goals of Karate. The
>Japanese had a different view as to what martial arts were good for; that
>does not mean that their influence was a "bad" one.
>
Yes they thought it was good for inculcating a fascist based perversion of
neo confucianism.
Very very baaaad !!!
>Kung Fu still exists; it did not disappear into history. If it did not
>currently exist, you would have a reasonable argument for Karate
>returning to its "roots". As it stands, Karate is going to continue to
>develop in whatever directions in the future. It isn't going to change
>to something it is not.
>
My argument for Karate returning to its roots is because it has clearly lost
something in transmission that it needs to regain. I am all for the natural
development of martial arts. In Kung Fu, this is called the 'living
tradition' but I am dead set against it unnatural arrest in immaturity.
>>Which is a sad loss for the teacher and the teachee. Foreign martial arts
>>are an ideal vehicle for delving into the culture of another country and
>>coming to understand it better thus widening one's experience of the human
>>condition.
>
>That said, I'm not going to learn much about Asian culture from my
>instructor, who is caucasion and has never been to Asia (except on
>vacation). Does that negate the fact that he has good things to teach?
>Of course not.
>
No, but if you start to understand the culture and history of an art, you
start to discover things about it that you could never learn otherwise.
>>>They are intended for that to a certain extent, yes. They also teach
>>>other things.
>>Like ????
>
>Self discipline. Attention to detail. Focus. Concentration.
>
And what do you use these for? Getting up in the morning.
>>>Your beef is with certain practices taught in certain clubs in a single
>>>small country. The clubs you've trained in do not represent "Traditional
>>>Karate" and definitely do not represent Karate as a whole.
>>Now who is being racist ????
>
>Perhaps I'm not seeing it, but I don't see anything in the above that
>could even remotely be considered racist. If the above statement is
>racist, perhaps you can tell me who it is racist toward, because that's
>something I don't know.
>
Actually you are right, you said nothing racist. You made factual
statements about Britain which are true. Equally I said nothing racist, I
made factual statements which are true.
>>The rest of the argument is about how kata got to the bad state they are
in.
>>It is a matter of historical interpretation.
>
>Indeed, but the fact remains that your opinions seem to discount the
>validity of a number of the things taught in "traditional" karate clubs.
>You criticize what is a relatively small part of training in certain
>clubs.
>
Actually, it is not the validity which I question but the completeness.
>While I agree with you that there are some things taught that are
>dangerous (i.e. hyperextension of the joints), I don't believe that these
>are taught by the majority of karate instructors in the world.
>
I think you should add your teaching that karate is nothing to do with
fighting
Richard
John Stevens
artist, not the martial art that makes the fighter. I teach Kenpo
Karate at Tracy's Karate in St. Louis, MO. I've seen a few students
who study martial arts I'm not a fan of be very competent fighters.
My style is better than your style really make no difference in a real
life situation. It's hit or get hit. It's about reaction time, it's
about physical ability, and just a little bit of luck. On a very good
day, any drunken soccor play with a swift kick to the groin can end a
fight with a very good martial artist.
On Sun, 30 Jan 2000 00:48:01 GMT, George Wenzel
<gwe...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>In article <38932...@news2.vip.uk.com>, richar...@breathemail.net
>says...
>>Actually I am coming at this not from free style but from the viewpoint of
>>being ultra traditional ie. I believe that Karate is a form of kung fu and
>>should be treated as such although there were some indigenous development in
>>certain styles in Okinawa.
>
>If you really want to go so far back, why not simply say that all current
>martial arts are forms of Greco-Roman wrestling? Most martial arts (if
>you go back far enough) can be traced back to that era.
>
>My point is this: Karate is quite clearly significantly different from
>Kung Fu, just as Tae Kwon Do is significantly different from Karate.
>That's why they're considered to be different martial arts that have
>certain similarities. All martial arts are similar to a certain extent,
>but they have their differences, and that's what makes them interesting.
>Trying to say that "Zoo-Kai is just the same as Fubu-Ryu" doesn't really
>advance an argument very much, especially if the two styles are
>considerably different from one another.
>
>>The problem is that the only Karate that I have seen in the UK is the high
>>school variety.
>
>I think that the problem you're facing is that you believe that the
>Karate you've been exposed to is reflective of all Karate practiced
>around the world. You may want to entertain the possibility that your
>opinions are based on the minority, not the majority, of Karate training
>styles.
>
>>Again, in the UK, there seems to be very little leeway at least in the trad.
>>clubs.
>
>Again, why do you make the argument against all "Traditional Karate"
>schools when your reference point consists entirely of schools in one
>small island country?
>
>>>> 3. There is no connection between sports sparring and kata moves or kata
>>>> moves and self defence. In Chinese systems, the kata moves are also the
>>>> sports moves and are also the self defence moves.
>>>I'm not going to touch this one. If you actually believe this there is
>>>little if any hope for you. Suffice it to say you aren't even in the right
>>>country let alone the right city or ballpark.
>>
>>Sorry, I am studying with a teacher who has been to China and this is true.
>
>I fail to see the logical connection here. You make a statement about
>Karate (the part about "no connection" and then you say it's true because
>you study with a teacher (presumably Kung Fu) who has been to China.
>What am I missing?
>
>>I have seen a high ranked goju player and while what he was doing was
>>externally similar to the crane player, internally it was completely wrong.
>
>I find it odd that you are arbitrarily saying that things are "right" or
>"wrong". You're judging other people by your own standards; a form of
>martial art ethnocentrism.
>
>>Moreover their kata are too jerky and show too much power.
>
>Again, based on _your_ standards. By their standards the kata may be
>done perfectly. Different styles and different instructors interpret
>things differently. Things can be different without being "better" or
>"worse".
>
>You are certainly free to decide for yourself what you consider to be
>"good" or "bad" for your own training. You don't, IMHO, have the right
>to judge all martial arts based on your (somewhat limited) experience.
>
>>IMO techniques should be light, soft, flowing and power should be
>>practically invisible when applied at the point of contact.
>
>IMHO techniques should demonstrate maximum power at the point of contact,
>with full follow-through past the contact point. Am I right? No; that's
>only my opinion. I don't think that other people's techniques are
>"wrong" because I happen to disagree with them.
>
>>Yes, the Japanese are that dumb.
>
>I'd suggest that you curb your racism. You have made some valid points,
>but this kind of suggestion is likely to land you in my (and other
>peoples') killfiles.
>
>>And as for a Japanese Karateka going up anyone half competent
>>in Kung Fu in a real fight, well I would like to know what flowers he wants
>>put on his grave.
>
>I think that this kind of "my style is better than your style" argument
>leads nowhere but to flame wars. If you want to drone on about this
>crap, please do so in rec.martial-arts, where it seems to be quite
>prevalent.
>
>>But my point is that Karate is Chinese with some supplementary stuff from
>>Okinawan Ti.
>
>Fine. You've repeated this point ad nauseum. You've also revealed
>(IMHO) that your reasoning for criticizing karate is that you bear racist
>attitudes toward the Japanese. Not a good basis for an opinion, IMO.
>
>>To say that 100 years of development takes away from 300 or
>>even 1000 years of cultural origination seems completely idiotic. Sorry :-)
>
>I think that the time-frame is irrelevant. Karate, as it is taught in
>most places today, is not a "Chinese" art. It is an art that reflects
>the learnings of those who teach it, which currently includes people from
>pretty much every country out there. The same, BTW, can be said for Kung
>Fu.
>
>>Sorry, but forms are meant to teach you the actual moves in fighting if in a
>>somewhat idealised way.
>
>They are intended for that to a certain extent, yes. They also teach
>other things.
>
>>You should see our resident 7th Dan in Wado ,a more arthritic guy you never
>>met.
>
>I've seen a 9th Dan in Wado (Sensei Masaru Shintani) train and he, at 70+
>years old, can move quicker than most 25 year-old karateka that I train
>with (myself included).
>
>You're using a single person as a reference point and assuming that
>person represents the whole. So what if one Wado practitioner has
>developed Arthritis? If a high-level Kung Fu practitioner developed
>Cancer would you suddenly stop training for fear of tumors?
>
>>I have nothing against combat sports. My beef is with some of the worst
>>practices of so called trad. Karate.
>
>Your beef is with certain practices taught in certain clubs in a single
>small country. The clubs you've trained in do not represent "Traditional
>Karate" and definitely do not represent Karate as a whole.
>
>>But in the trad karate I have seen everyone has to conform to some
>>ideal instead of working on individual differences.
>
>You indicated that you've trained in _two_ karate styles. Presumably,
>you've trained in perhaps 2-3 Karate clubs. Why do you think that what
>is taught in these clubs will be the same as what is taught in the
>thousands of other clubs around the world? You've hardly drawn a
>representative sample.
>
>>As I said I am targetting the worst.
>
>You're criticizing what YOU perceive to be the worst in a small minority
>of the Karate clubs in the world, and generalizing to every "Traditional
>Karate" club in the world. That's where your argument fails.
>
>Why do you think that the "Traditional Karate" you've seen is the same as
>the "Traditional Karate" the rest of the world practices? As has already
>been stated, numerous "Traditional Karate" clubs (mine included) do not
>partake in most of the practices you refer to.
>
>>And sometimes I wish I was on stuff when you see some of the crap that
>>passes for martial arts in this part of the world.
>
>If you think it's crap, then don't do it. It's as simple as that. A
>fundamental lesson of the martial arts is humility and tolerance for
>other people's beliefs and opinions. I do not believe you have learned
>that lesson, and I hope that your instructor teaches it to you sometime
>soon.
>
>Regards,
>
>George Wenzel
JW
With all due respect, Sir. I think your post says volumes. I too teach
karate. Shito-Ryu one of the 4 (major) styles still taught in Japane today.
I took Kenpo under the Tracy System for about a year also. I agree with you
that it IS the Martial Artist and not the style in most cases. However, if I
may point out one thing. Nowhere in you post did you mention anything about
discipline, self control, honor, humility, warrior spirit, or any of the
things it takes to be a true martial artist. What you did mention was a lot
on fighting, getting hit, etc. We also have a saying at my dojo amoung the
instructors: "I can teach anyboby to fight. And I can do it it 15 minutes.
It takes a lifetime to be a true Martial "artist".
With respect and honor,
Sempai J. White
John Stevens <jstev...@home.com> wrote in message
news:q4v5gssac1ag0v3u7...@4ax.com...