39 posts / 0 new
Last post
Th0mas
Th0mas's picture

..now that sounds like a good idea.. mine's a burger please smiley

shoshinkanuk
shoshinkanuk's picture

I think the importance of Funakoshi Sensei actually not being a 'Master' is significant if one rests to much on his approach, writings etc etc.

Otherwise it doesn't matter at all.

JWT
JWT's picture

shoshinkanuk wrote:

I think the importance of Funakoshi Sensei actually not being a 'Master' is significant if one rests to much on his approach, writings etc etc.

Otherwise it doesn't matter at all.

I think with Funakoshi, Itosu, Mabuni, Motobu and any Instructor who produces material which can be studied it is important to look at their works with both an open mind and academic rigour.  What are they saying? What are they doing? Why are they doing it that way?  What experience do they have?  Would that work?  

At risk of breaching forum rules: anyone can feed you bullshit, but it's up to you to swallow it.

The significant Karateka of the 1930s and earlier were a 'new'  rare type of fish in a big pond of JMA.  They were humans of varying knowledge, experience, skill, teaching and marketing ability and we should always bear that in mind when studying them.   To draw an analogy as a historian, I can still benefit from reading a single medieval manuscript, or a C19 historian's work on the period, but I can benefit and learn much more from reading lots of medieval manuscripts, or by  reading the far more accurate in- depth work of C20 historians who have had access to more original source material and more historiography.  There are now more ponds and more types of fish we can look at to draw conclusions.

DaveB
DaveB's picture

shoshinkanuk wrote:
I think the importance of Funakoshi Sensei actually not being a 'Master' is significant if one rests to much on his approach, writings etc etc.

Otherwise it doesn't matter at all.
  Lol, Sadly Jim most of us cant cheat and go straight to the source like you :-). I'm Pretty sure Motobu didn't rank as a master in Okinawa either, his rep is based on picking fights, no more than what a number of modern Japanese karate masters did when they were young.  The Okinawans have not seen fit to correct the version of karate presented to the Japanese and passed onto us in the west. We work with what we've got.  I've found Funakoshi's writings helpful above most others. He may not have been a Master, but unless they were lying to him for 40 years he knew what karate was all about and may well have been better at articulating it than he was at doing it. He was afterall asked to teach his master's son.  For those who know and have an interest in such things, what is it that recognition of mastery would imbue? Are you suggesting that Funakoshi wasn't an inner circle student even after 40 years? That he didn't know enough to make modifications or preserve the essence of the art? He was an educated man, surely even if his ability was low his understanding had to be high? What exactly is it his teachers skipped? Which bits did he get wrong? I am a great believer in looking at what is said, not who said it. But if there are some clear examples of GF getting it wrong then I think we should all be aware of it so that we can put his work into context.    That being said, if someone could devote so much to the art and his teachers and not know enough to pass on lessons of significant value, then the Okinawan system stinks both in terms of teaching methods and in terms of how the information is organized. If GF really had such limitations after so long under Azato's wing I think we should do away with any vestiges of Okinawan methods and develop one's that work. 
Th0mas
Th0mas's picture

Lol

I suspect you are right about that... we are doing the internet equivalent of styling the hair on the heads of the angels on a pin head...

Dale Parker
Dale Parker's picture

Well, for the most part, I've been taught by my peers, that Funakoshi only taught the 15 kata he knew.

Since Funakoshi did not consider himself a master by Okinawan standards, he refused to teach bunkai.

At some point, Funakoshi sent his senior students that he felt he had nothing more to teach, to Kenwa Mabuni for additional lessons on everything.

Many of his books, when given to the publisher, the editors took liberites, to such a degree that they would change the content, up to and including what kata's were presented.  Soke Kenzo Mabuni told me this, and stated that it was a great source of contention with Funakoshi that his Father Kenwa, and Funakoshi discussed often when they visited. 

I can only pass on what I know, and have been taught.  It may all be perspective of the people that gave me the information, but in my own studies I see bunkai being taught by Shotokan stylist now. In the 1980's, that was not the case, Shotokan stylist didn't know bunkai.  So I question it, especially since their bunkai is so vastly different in many cases from what I've been taught.

As I stated before, I'd skip the Funakoshi text and turn to the Mabuni page.  My opinion.

DaveB
DaveB's picture
Dale, I and I'm sure most other KarateKa are aware of all of that to one degree or another, but what does it change? It doesn't answer the question, is anything he passed on just plain incorrect and if so what? The opinions and testimonies of those who were around is of great value, but we know GF didn't teach bunkai and 15 kata are more than enough for me at least. What I find useful in Funakoshi's work is the clues he left regarding application, small and hidden though they are. Mabuni's books (that have been translated) are on the wish list, but not yet as accessible as Gf's work but if they contradict Funakoshi it would be good to know how?
Dale Parker
Dale Parker's picture

I did say turn to the Mabuni page, but that was ment metaphorically.  I wouldnt trust any book that was translated.  I was suggesting the study of Shito-Ryu.

As always, just my opinion.

Pages