Block – Kick – Punch, why do they believe ?

I have found from my daytime work that some people can eventually convince themselves into believing something they imagined is real and therefore must be true and occurred even when everything else points to the contrary. Its quite an amazing thing to see first hand. 

I guess we would have to ask them.............However I won't pretend a physically able, experienced karateka of this type wouldn't be able to handle themselves, if they have real life experience.

Alot of such beliefs in 'karate' IMO boil down to investment of time, and pride in certain methods - it isn't easy to let go of what you know, especially if there is political, monetry and organisational risks associated to doing so.

Also - it would seem many karateka of this era came through the University route, where ultimatly Budo, and tournament based karate were the focus, they worked with what they got and it isn't good practice to challange Sensei from a cultural perspective.

Block, Kick, Puch approach in the right hands works perfectly well IMO.

I'm not sure what you mean by the Block, kick, punch approach Karim.

Are you talking about the linear nature of the approach? If so, perhaps they slowed it down and separated it for teaching purposes. Maybe they believed in it because for them, it worked?

I don't know a lot about thentwo guys you mentioned but I do know that Kanazawa was well into his Tai Chi so I'm not sure your assumption that he saw Shotokan as the 'one and only' way, is true either.

There are many Kanazawa's  the one I'm speaking about is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirokazu_Kanazawa

By the "Block, kick, punch approach" I mean the modern shotokan karate bunkais which are always practiced in a pure modern Karate style with multiple attackers performing tsukis or kicks in a choreographed way and where the defender performs kata movements usually as blocks against these attacks, followed by a counter punch or kick (and sometimes followed by nothing depending on the Kata).

Yes, that's the same guy. He claims to have trained in the Yang style of Tai Chi from 1958 onwards.

He also said that he learned a lot of his breath control from Aikido.

"Most of my breathing techniques were developed by myself because Nakayama Sensei wanted me to find out by myself. Therefore he sent me to learn Aikido. I also started studying Tai Chi, which taught me how to relax and taught me more about the breathing. Also an Aikido Master started training in karate and we were teaching one another, then I found out by myself."

Sounds like an open-minded guy to me.

No matter, I understand what you are talking about.

I always understood that Shotokan was never intended to be a fighting system and that it was more about the development of self (and the preparation of Japanese youth for the discipline of the military). Funakoshi used karate-like movements to achieve these goals. Perhaps those movements you speak of are simply designed to keep students focussed and moving in set patterns that need a lot of concentration and practice to get right?

karim_benakli wrote:

There are many Kanazawa's  the one I'm speaking about is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirokazu_Kanazawa

By the "Block, kick, punch approach" I mean the modern shotokan karate bunkais which are always practiced in a pure modern Karate style with multiple attackers performing tsukis or kicks in a choreographed way and where the defender performs kata movements usually as blocks against these attacks, followed by a counter punch or kick (and sometimes followed by nothing depending on the Kata).

OK, im with you a little more - my points are still valid IMO, but now we are talking about (essentially) a fixed, non-practical approach to Bunkai, drilled over and over. (and of course agaisnt 'karate' attacks).

Personally I don't do this much at all, but I was told that it is there to teach something about distancing and timing, and correct form - personally I don't buy that as a satisfactory reason outside of, perhaps the very initial introducion to Bunkai with partner/s - indeed I would go so far as to say it is wholly negative after a little practice to continue with this method, in terms of unlocking kata Bunkai, and indeed applying what you find for practical use.

It's used alot for demos so, it must be good.............LOL

Hello all

just my humble opinion on the issue of japanese karate masters and their interpretation of kata bunkai using karate style attacks.

Japan has a very low crime rate and assaults against the person are indeed rare compared to most western countries. this makes me think that those karate masters therefore have little or no knowledge / experience of real world street violence as it occurs in our streets. this is not a crtisism of them just my theory as to why they dont teach effective practical kata bunkai.

i agree with shoshinkanuk's assertion that the basic karate type attack bunkai is suitable initially for beginers to learn distance and timing but that this should be put to bed so to speak early on and more focus placed upon effective bunkai.

i also agree to some extent with Gavin in his statement that Shotokan (and IMO therefore its derivatives) was never intended to be a fighting system and that it was more about the development of self and the preparation of Japanese youth for the discipline of the military. This being the case Shotokan still has as its foundation old shuri te karate if doctored to some extent. we can see from its kata and the bunkai that Iain and others teach that it still has potential for practical use in self defence. However as we all know on these forums this is dependant upon ones focus and training methodology. 

lcpljones_dontpanic wrote:

i also agree to some extent with Gavin in his statement that Shotokan (and IMO therefore its derivatives) was never intended to be a fighting system and that it was more about the development of self and the preparation of Japanese youth for the discipline of the military. This being the case Shotokan still has as its foundation old shuri te karate if doctored to some extent. we can see from its kata and the bunkai that Iain and others teach that it still has potential for practical use in self defence. However as we all know on these forums this is dependant upon ones focus and training methodology. 

To be honest, I think this is a mistake. Perhaps shotokan was used to help bring the militaristic or samurai mind mind back to a Japanese youth who'd lost it with the advent of the Meiji restoration. However, shotokan kata are not so different from other system's kata. An oi-tsuki is an oi-tsuki is an oi-tsuki no matter what subtle style differences apply.

It's kind of related to the discussion about Heian's being or not being "beginners" kata - I could show you short sequences of movements - two shuto uke's for example - and you wouldn't be able to tell whether they came from a Heian kata or a later, supposedly, more advanced one. Taken out of the framework of the kata it's impossible to tell. Knowing that two or, at best, three chained movements could be used effectively in a real protection situation (due to the randomness of conflict), all you need are combos of two or three movements. So it makes a nonsense out of the argument that this kata is for training or only for beginners and that kata is for advanced students or more practical in a protection situation.

Take that thinking more macro and you can apply it to styles. I can't see that shotokan was designed to be something other than a fighting style. I think what may have happened is that Funakoshi and his students adapted the training methodology NOT the style. But it doesn't make the style less of a fighting system. All you need to do is re-adapt the training methodology. The same can be said for any system.

Actually, it was Funakoshi who claimed that his system was more about the development of the self that the fighter per se.

I'm not having a go at Shotokan and in fact believe that it does an amazing job at doing what it was designed to do.#

I would however, have to take issue with your assumption that an oi-tsuki is an oi-tsuki is an oi-tsuki. To me, one of the central tenants of karate is the multi-layered nature of a single  movement.

If we take stances as an example, we can clearly see that Shotokan is using the stance for a different purpose, to some of the other styles.

In Goju for example, although there are some trips and traps that use a more static version of the stance, there are basically only two reasons for Shiko Dachi - either I am dragging someone down, or I am picking someone up. It is the lines of power that dictate the stance and as both of these movements require vertical power, Shiko Dachi is the most efficient, practical and powerful means of transitioning along those lines of power.

What Shotokan often does is hold its students low in this stance fro extended pewriods of time. As this can never enhance your ability to lift up or pull down, it is clearly being used for a different purpose so what might that be?

What holding students in painful stances over time does is a fantastic job of developing resilient students with ahigh propensity to never give up. So, limited direct fighting benefit, but huge gains in developing 'spirit' - coincidentally, exactly what Funakoshi claimed to be seeking.

As I say, this is in no way a criticism of Shotokan as it has, and continues to, produce some amazing karateka, but it does seem as if the goals are somewhat different from perhaps, some of the older systems

Jon Sloan wrote:

To be honest, I think this is a mistake. Perhaps shotokan was used to help bring the militaristic or samurai mind mind back to a Japanese youth who'd lost it with the advent of the Meiji restoration. However, shotokan kata are not so different from other system's kata. An oi-tsuki is an oi-tsuki is an oi-tsuki no matter what subtle style differences apply.

It's kind of related to the discussion about Heian's being or not being "beginners" kata - I could show you short sequences of movements - two shuto uke's for example - and you wouldn't be able to tell whether they came from a Heian kata or a later, supposedly, more advanced one. Taken out of the framework of the kata it's impossible to tell. Knowing that two or, at best, three chained movements could be used effectively in a real protection situation (due to the randomness of conflict), all you need are combos of two or three movements. So it makes a nonsense out of the argument that this kata is for training or only for beginners and that kata is for advanced students or more practical in a protection situation.

Take that thinking more macro and you can apply it to styles. I can't see that shotokan was designed to be something other than a fighting style. I think what may have happened is that Funakoshi and his students adapted the training methodology NOT the style. But it doesn't make the style less of a fighting system. All you need to do is re-adapt the training methodology. The same can be said for any system.

The physcial is a vehicle to train the body and mind.  The concern isn't so much of function as it was of uniformity.  Look at how Shotokan trains in a very militaristic fashion.  Even their training was designed to replicate military service for young people.

The comment about a punch being a punch is true on one level.  You learn how to punch and you can reverse engineer it to make it from a -do approach to a -jutsu approach.  BUT, when you look at many of the Shotokan katas you can see where Funakoshi removed the combat applications.  For example in Wansu kata, you learn a throw very similiar to a fire man's carry in wrestling or a kata garuma in Judo.  This technique is absent from the Shotokan kata Empi.  Where you throw, instead Funakoshi replaced it with a jumping in the air and spinning around movement.

Other places where you have a double block going high and low are really throws, but they were taught as blocking a kick and a head punch from two different attackers in "traditional" bunkai.

That is the difference between a -do and a -jutsu approach.  The -do is more concerned with character development first and a -jutsu approach is more concerend with application first.  Eventually, the two could/would meet at the same place, but have different paths to get there.

Gavin Mulholland wrote:

Actually, it was Funakoshi who claimed that his system was more about the development of the self that the fighter per se.

I'm not having a go at Shotokan and in fact believe that it does an amazing job at doing what it was designed to do.#

I would however, have to take issue with your assumption that an oi-tsuki is an oi-tsuki is an oi-tsuki. To me, one of the central tenants of karate is the multi-layered nature of a single  movement.

If we take stances as an example, we can clearly see that Shotokan is using the stance for a different purpose, to some of the other styles.

In Goju for example, although there are some trips and traps that use a more static version of the stance, there are basically only two reasons for Shiko Dachi - either I am dragging someone down, or I am picking someone up. It is the lines of power that dictate the stance and as both of these movements require vertical power, Shiko Dachi is the most efficient, practical and powerful means of transitioning along those lines of power.

What Shotokan often does is hold its students low in this stance fro extended pewriods of time. As this can never enhance your ability to lift up or pull down, it is clearly being used for a different purpose so what might that be?

What holding students in painful stances over time does is a fantastic job of developing resilient students with ahigh propensity to never give up. So, limited direct fighting benefit, but huge gains in developing 'spirit' - coincidentally, exactly what Funakoshi claimed to be seeking.

As I say, this is in no way a criticism of Shotokan as it has, and continues to, produce some amazing karateka, but it does seem as if the goals are somewhat different from perhaps, some of the older systems

I think I see what you mean Gavin but, and perhaps rightly so, you're assuming all shotokan is taught in the same way. And I'm guessing that your definition of shotokan would include teaching practices? Personally I wouldn't include in that definition certain training practices such as holding students in long deep stances for extended periods of time. I don't teach it like that and Vince Morris, my sensei, doesn't either. Yes, we have long deep stances but we don't hold students in them. A stance is a transition from one position to another. So, we'd use shiko or kiba dachi in the same way as I think you do - a means to get below an opponent's centre of gravity to initiate a lift/throw. Marching up and down in lines in long deep stances may be what people perceive to be shotokan but that's simplay an adopted training practice and not the style itself, in my view.

Perhaps you confused my phrase about oi-tsuki's, and that's my fault. I didn't mean to say a stepping punch is only a stepping punch - indeed I subscribe to the view that that movement can have many applications - including trips/throws. What I meant was that, although we may have slight differences between the fine movemens of how we execute that punch from style to style, fundamentally it's the same punch/movement. So, to say that one style is designed to be for combat and another for developing a military mentality doesn't work for me. You could teach goju in a manner that focused on developing a miltary mindset rather than combat effectiveness but you'd still, at a fundamental level, be teaching goju movements just drilled in a different way.

I'm always wary of quotes from, particularly, Funakoshi in his Japan era. I have no idea what his original purpose was in going there and teaching but I do think that he saw an opportunity to spread his art to a wider audience (whether for altruistic or personal goals) and framed his messages accordingly.

Hope this helps clarify my thoughts.

PS - I'm enjoying Four Shades of Black.

Kevin73 wrote:

The comment about a punch being a punch is true on one level.  You learn how to punch and you can reverse engineer it to make it from a -do approach to a -jutsu approach.  BUT, when you look at many of the Shotokan katas you can see where Funakoshi removed the combat applications.  For example in Wansu kata, you learn a throw very similiar to a fire man's carry in wrestling or a kata garuma in Judo.  This technique is absent from the Shotokan kata Empi.  Where you throw, instead Funakoshi replaced it with a jumping in the air and spinning around movement.

Other places where you have a double block going high and low are really throws, but they were taught as blocking a kick and a head punch from two different attackers in "traditional" bunkai.

That is the difference between a -do and a -jutsu approach.  The -do is more concerned with character development first and a -jutsu approach is more concerend with application first.  Eventually, the two could/would meet at the same place, but have different paths to get there.

Hey Kevin - see my comment to Gavin above about the punches.

Regarding wanshu/enpi, I teach that kataguruma throw for that movment too (amongst other things). Just because the solo form in shotokan makes the bit after the pick up a spin and jump doesn't alter the application. You could view that, as I do, that the person who amended that movement just wanted to emphasise how much effort must be put in to actually pick a resisting person up and throw them in that manner. Perhaps he did it so that you would develop good explosive quad power and an ability to rotate fast and stop in a controlled manner. All elements of a good throw. Are you sure it was Funakoshi himself that amended that movement? I don't know, just asking.

Hope that helps.

Hi Jon,

I don't think I can really argue with any of that and I do know that all Shotokan is not the same. A lot of schools do use the stances in the way I described though and one of the reasons that I think Shotokan has spawned so many off-shoots is that people have seen gaps that they have tried to fill. I find it hard to believe that the ommissions were accidental and it appears to fit better that the original purpose of the system was somewhat different.

Of course any generalisations are always doomed to failure and I do know a lot of people who can make it work, and work well.

My reason for bringing it up in the first place was in an attempt to answer why people believe in seemingly impractical techniques and I was suggesting that they were never intended to be 'practical' in this first place - at least not in a direct fighting way.

Hope that makes sense?

Hey Gavin,

Absolutely that does make sense.

I think that the "block, kick, punch" approach is less tied to the style than it is the teacher and how they were taught. I've seen plenty of classes from different styles that I've visited over the years that use this approach. Shotokan particularly suffers from it but, again, it's probably due to the massive success it enjoyed in the 50s/60s/70s due to the deliberate and organised efforts of the JKA to distribute their version of it around the world. That was a double edged sword for most of us - on the one hand it brought karate to the world's attention and made it very available in the west but, on the other, gave us a very narrow view of what was a wider art. A view propagated by massively talented Japanese sensei who themselves had very narrowly focused views of what karate was.

It's important to be clear about definitions though. So, I wouldn't call the techniques themselves impractical rather the way the application of them was taught. The majority of techniques are common across styles, although I guess that some styles have a small body of essentially unique techniques that run alongside the commonplace ones. 

Jon Sloan wrote:

I can't see that shotokan was designed to be something other than a fighting style. I think what may have happened is that Funakoshi and his students adapted the training methodology NOT the style. But it doesn't make the style less of a fighting system. All you need to do is re-adapt the training methodology. The same can be said for any system.

Hi all

Jon i think i see what you're getting at but as far as i can recall from my reading, Shotokan was the style of karate taught by Funakoshi in Japan circa:1900 onwards. this i believe was based upon the watered down Shuri-te style taught within the Okinawan school system.

Shotokan's forebear Shuri-te was indeed an effective fighting system but had to be watered down in order to be taught to school children. upon being exported to Japan at a time when they were trying to move away from the old smaurai laden bujutsu to the more esoteric Do form of martial arts practice this watered down version of Shuri-te fitted the bill for Funakoshi to export, hence my reasoning for my assertion that Shotokan (and not Shuri-te its forebear) was never meant to be a truly practical fighting system. this is born out by Funakoshi's thoughts also. however it sounds as though you are one of the few Shotokan groups who are now practicing in a manner which has re-introduced the practical fighting ability back into Shotokan which can only be a good thing. 

Hmm, that's a common misconception. Perhaps even something of an urban legend. If you ever have a chance I'd recommend that you pick up a copy of Shotokan a Precise History by Harry Cook. I was lucky to buy a first edition!

The chapter on Funakoshi is very enlightening. Funakoshi learnt the same karate from the same group of teachers as his contemporaries - from Azato and Itosu principally. His training being done in secret at night as there was a ban on karate/tode training at that time.

Incidentally the root of shotokan is shorin-ryu and, according to the Cook book, shuri-te, tomari-te and naha-te were terms introduced in 1926 to classify the various methods by region in an effort to conceal their chinese roots as karate was spreading in an increasingly nationalistic Japan.

After Funakoshi's 1921 demo at shuri castle for crown prince Hirohito, one of the prince's aides noted "and there he witnessed the athletic exercises of the middle schools, who exhibited the art of self protection known as karate, resembling boxing."

Now, it's easy to conflate the fact that Funakoshi and other of Itosu's students were teaching at middle schools with the idea that they must have been teaching the kids a simplified form of tode. Whilst that is possible we can note that the aide also refers to it as a form of self protection resembling boxing. Not simply exercise. The fact that one got exercise whilst training in self protection may have just been a extra benefit. Or perhaps that was the door opener that was needed to introduce to the next generation, what was becoming, a dying art.

On his trip to Japan the following year, Funakoshi wrote the following poem on the ship travelling to the mainland. It's an interesting insight into his mindset at that time.

"On the island in the sea to the south,
There is transmitted an exquisite art.
This is karate.
To my great regret,
The art has declined
And its transmission in doubt.
Who would undertake
The monumental task
of Restoration and Revival?
This is a task I must undertake;
Who would if I did not?
I vowed to the blue sky."

The Tokyo Nichinichi Shinbun newspaper reported on an early demonstration he gave to the Tabata Poplar Club with the following headline: "Secret Martial Art of Karate: Chinese Fist from Ryuku. Wonderful Technique to Defend against an Opponent with Bare Hands. Kodokan to study." Followed by "Karate is a method of self defense which allows one to win without a weapon." And "Karate consists mainly of many methods of defense from where thrusts and kicks are delivered one after another to attack an opponent with kiai. The whole movement is very fast and will take your breath away. Some martial arts masters tried to challenge Mr. Funakoshi, but gave up after he defended against every attack."

Remember still all this refers to the karate that Funakoshi was demonstrating to the Japanese.

Funakoshi was quoted as saying that it may be the best method to compensate for the weaknesses of judo against foreign methods of boxing. Also, that as it does not require a weapon it may be the best form of martial art for the modern era.

Now, remember, this is a man on a mission to ensure that his art does not die out and is spread as far as possible. It's likely that these comments were aimed at the police, skilled in jujitsu/judo, who were having trouble coping with the boxing skills of foreign sailors and that the reference to "modern" may be to portray karate as something more than a curious antique.

After the Kodokan demonstration, Kano asked Funakoshi to be the Karate Director there and, when he declined, introduced elements of karate; certainly methods of countering it, into the judo syllabus. He seemed to see that the judo he taught had gaps which karate could fill.

One of Funakoshi's earliest students at his first Tokyo dojo was Masamoto Takagi, at that time a high school student. He trained at the Meisei Juku building with other students such as Ohtsuka. "One day a man named Omiya or some such name visited our master. He was said to be an expert in the art of stick fighting or bo-jutsu. In a fight with our master, the bo-jutsu expert was completely defeated. Our master appeared very gentle at first sight but his real strength was shown whenever it was deemed necessary."

Funakoshi also apparently was very keen that they maintain a strong sense of zanshin at all times teaching them ways of holding their rice bowls and clay pipes so as to prevent them being smashed into their own faces and necks if taken by surprise. And to always sit in a manner that allowed them to kick if attacked and would test them accordingly.

Takagi also recounts a story where, soon after being awarded his shodan by Funakoshi, he thought he'd see if the master lived by his own words. He spotted him dozing in the sun in the courtyard and launched a surprise attack. Funakoshi leapt up and struck Takagi so hard on the arm it went dead for a bit.

Now, as anecdotal as these tales may be, they do not paint the picture of a man teaching "watered down" kids karate as a calisthenics program.

In the first book he published, Ryukyu Kempo Karate (1922), he wrote "It is not possible to have shiai (competition) in karate as they have in kendo or judo, because in karate if you strike your opponent it could be fatal." Though he does go on to contemplate if protection could be developed then free sparring could be possible. However, in later years, he refused to have anything to do with bogu (armored) sparring.

In the 1935 edition of Karate Do Kyohan there are pictures of defences against sword, knife and so on. Indeed, in the 1930s, the shotokan syllabus included weapons kata.

All of this points to a man teaching what he had learnt - a system of self protection. This was early shotokan.

It's after this in the 1940s that we see the change occurring in karate (shotokan) as its practice spread, particularly in the universities. He wrote in the 1950s "Times change, the world changes, and obviously the martial arts must change too. The karate that high school students practice today is not the same karate that was practiced even as recently as ten years ago, and it is a long way indeed from the karate that I learned when I was a child in Okinawa."

He's referring to both kata that he'd simplified and methods of training that had been developed to cope with larger class sizes and students who were around for less time (three years for university students).

So, whilst it is true to say that much of shotokan as it is taught now closely resembles what it became from the mid 40s onwards, it is not true that shotokan is a style developed for teaching children a simplified calisthenics form of karate. Certainly Funakoshi was teaching self protection karate from the 1920s to the 1940s but he, and others like Ohtsuka who by that time had founded his own system, modified the teaching of it to adapt to a changing Japan (and World). It reflected the shift from "Jutsu" to "Do", I guess, a shift that many systems went through.

Anyway, sorry that turned into a long essay but I think it's important to eradicate this belief that Itosu and Funakoshi's karate was developed/adapted to be taught to school kids from the early 1900s onwards. AND that it lost all martial value at that time.

The big changes came in the late 30s and early 40s, by which time it was being taught to all ages of Japanese society but particularly so in the Universities and that much of the change into sporting and athletic focus was driven by the university students themselves.

For a period of time shotokan, as taught by Funakoshi, was a self protection system. He, and more so his son and that generation, adapted it to reflect their own philosophies and needs.

All we're doing is reclaiming the original goals - self protection with the added benefit of health improvement.

Hi Jon

a detailed an interesting post I thought. Thanks for the recommendation of the Harry Cook publication, I will be sure to try and source a copy. however in response i would like to add;

Jon Sloan wrote:

After Funakoshi's 1921 demo at shuri castle for crown prince Hirohito, one of the prince's aides noted "and there he witnessed the athletic exercises of the middle schools, who exhibited the art of self protection known as karate, resembling boxing."

I still doubt that these school children were being taught the practical combative aspect of karate as Funakoshi had learned it from Azato and Itosu even if a spectator refers to their demonstration as a form of self protection resembling boxing.

Today children all around the world are allowed to practice various martial arts including Ju Jitsu, Kickboxing, Muay Thai and western boxing but these systems have either been altered in some way in the syllabus that is delivered to children and/or rules and safety equipment are utilised as is rightly so.

Jon Sloan wrote:

"On the island in the sea to the south,
There is transmitted an exquisite art.
This is karate.
To my great regret,
The art has declined
And its transmission in doubt.
Who would undertake
The monumental task
of Restoration and Revival?
This is a task I must undertake;
Who would if I did not?
I vowed to the blue sky."

The problem with poetry such as this is that it can be construed in different ways. I read this as;

In Okinawa there was once practiced a martial art called karate.

The practice of Karate however has declined and is in danger of being lost.

It is my intention to revive the practice of karate.

So Funakoshi is saying that despite karate being taught in the Okinawan school system the true art of karate has declined and is dying out.

Jon Sloan wrote:

The Tokyo Nichinichi Shinbun newspaper reported on an early demonstration he gave to the Tabata Poplar Club with the following headline: "Secret Martial Art of Karate: Chinese Fist from Ryuku. Wonderful Technique to Defend against an Opponent with Bare Hands. Kodokan to study." Followed by "Karate is a method of self defense which allows one to win without a weapon." And "Karate consists mainly of many methods of defense from where thrusts and kicks are delivered one after another to attack an opponent with kiai. The whole movement is very fast and will take your breath away. Some martial arts masters tried to challenge Mr. Funakoshi, but gave up after he defended against every attack."

The problem I foresee here is that firstly we are dealing with newspaper headlines which are intended to grab the attention of the public “Secret Martial Art of Karate”. Everyone likes to be privy to secrets and as we know from the plethora of advertisements claiming to sell the secrets of this or that obscure or deadly martial art that this will always appeal to a large number of misinformed people. Secondly the endorsement of a respected authority, “kodokan to Study”, would appeal in any sales pitch or PR campaign but in Japan at that time this would truly be considered high praise indeed. Thirdly as you no doubt know in Japan, as in many other cultures, that which is considered to be old is treated with a high level of veneration and respect with no room for questioning or investigation.

The issue here of other martial arts masters challenging Funakoshi appears to me to be some what questionable. It has been recorded that challenge matches (kakiedameshi) between karate-ka in its golden age in Okinawa were not unheard of and were often brutal affairs where death and permanent disablement were a real risk even in cases where a gentlemen’s agreement on basic rules was first agreed. Also as you quoted in your post Funakoshi mentions in Ryukyu Kempo Karate (1922) "It is not possible to have shiai (competition) in karate as they have in kendo or judo, because in karate if you strike your opponent it could be fatal."

The issue I take here is that these challenging masters were friends of Funakoshi and this was a pre-arranged match similar to Jiyuu Ippon Kumite or self defence demonstrations performed at martial arts events today. If they were indeed impartial opponents would they not have attacked with 100% commitment, seeing Funakoshi and Karate as a potential threat to their own schools survival, therefore requiring Funakoshi to do more than defend against each attack or maybe I am missing something here.

Jon Sloan wrote:

Funakoshi was quoted as saying that it may be the best method to compensate for the weaknesses of judo against foreign methods of boxing. Also, that as it does not require a weapon it may be the best form of martial art for the modern era.

Now, remember, this is a man on a mission to ensure that his art does not die out and is spread as far as possible. It's likely that these comments were aimed at the police, skilled in jujitsu/judo, who were having trouble coping with the boxing skills of foreign sailors and that the reference to "modern" may be to portray karate as something more than a curious antique.

After the Kodokan demonstration, Kano asked Funakoshi to be the Karate Director there and, when he declined, introduced elements of karate; certainly methods of countering it, into the judo syllabus. He seemed to see that the judo he taught had gaps which karate could fill.

Funakoshi was evidently a shrewd and skillful salesman trying to sell his wears to the great Japanese Public. Likewise it appears that Kano too was quite the salesman, after all he was the one who brought all the historical Ju Jitsu Ryu together and from their respective schools the Kodokan school was formed. Seeing the potential in this new martial art from Okinawa he tries to absorb it into the Kodokan syllabus but Funakoshi declines in order to maintain the purity of his art or remain in control of it.

Jon Sloan wrote:

It's after this in the 1940s that we see the change occurring in karate (shotokan) as its practice spread, particularly in the universities. He wrote in the 1950s "Times change, the world changes, and obviously the martial arts must change too. The karate that high school students practice today is not the same karate that was practiced even as recently as ten years ago, and it is a long way indeed from the karate that I learned when I was a child in Okinawa."

Indeed things do change but not always for the better, ok I grant you that were it not for Funakoshi and a few others that karate may well have died out completely and so we should not be too critical of the direction that karate took in its development and the varying styles and competition formats that are now available to us. but let us not be misguided by blind obedience out of some cultural issue and allow ourselves to look at things critically after all we may practice a martial art of Okinawan / Japanese origin but we ourselves are not from that culture and should question that which we are told.

if my comment appear unrespectful etc that is not my intention i simply wish to view things critically with an open and enquiring mind.