Karate and Combatives

I don’t think it really matters what you call what you do. I have said before, I often find I have more in common with practitioners of “modern reality based systems” than I do with some karateka.

Indeed, when it gets down to what works, it is often the name used and the clothing worn that defines the art as opposed to what is actually employed when the brown stuff hits the fan.

Personally, I’ll always be a “karateka” though. Out of all the arts and approaches I’ve came across nothing enthuses me as much as karate does. There is something about feeling part of a strong tradition that works for me. I find that drawing on the information of the past (and putting it in a modern context) works for me both pragmatically and psychologically.

There are other approaches that would no doubt lead to me being just as efficient combatively, but those approaches do not appeal to me in the way that karate does. To keep working hard day after day, decade after decade, we need to be training in a way that appeals.

The bottom line is that I like all that karate brings, how it gets me to the point I want to be, I prefer the “karate approach” over all others I’ve been involved with, and therefore I’ll always be a karateka. And besides, I look better in a gi than combat pants :-)

Lee Richardson wrote:

I don't feel like I'm abandoning what I've done and the knowledge and experiences that I've accumulated, more that my training is developing along different lines these days. I'm drawn between simply acknowledging that my karate is mine alone and just calling it combatives and having done.

“Karate” is not, and never has been, this clearly defined thing. There are innumerable styles and approaches that all go by the name “karate”. Indeed, getting a solid definition of what “karate” is has proved very difficult for any one who has ever felt the need.

Your karate can be yours alone and still be “karate”; there is no need for a mandatory name change simply because what you are doing has developed along different lines from where you started. Good karate should constantly evolve in my view. I know that I do has significantly shifted from what I started doing all those years ago and hopefully it will continue to do so as I and it progress. However, it remains “karate” and I don’t think it’s a term I’d personally ever stop using. I use the prefixes of “Abernethy” to signify it is my karate and not the karate of my teachers or my students (as they should develop to do their own karate too), and I also use “Jissen” to make it clear the emphasis is firmly on the pragmatic. However, the “karate” has been there since the beginning and I’m sure it will be there to the end.

Interesting topic of what name we chose to use and I look forward to seeing this thread develop.

All the best,

Iain

A fairly solid way to conclude if what you do is indeed 'karate'  IMO is are you using the traditional karate kata within your system.

It's not a fool proof measure but a good guide IMO.

Karate may be many things to many peole, but to me it is 'the way of the empty hand' or 'china hand' from Japan, or if you choose to seperate, Okinawa. This in itself is a fairly broad brush stroke of course.

Also, to me it would be silly to call what you do karate, if there wasnt a respectful link to the traditon,culture and history of the art, direct or indirect- but that is just me and im fairly narrow in view.

shoshinkanuk wrote:

A fairly solid way to conclude if what you do is indeed 'karate'  IMO is are you using the traditional karate kata within your system.

Also, to me it would be silly to call what you do karate, if there wasnt a respectful link to the traditon,culture and history of the art, direct or indirect- but that is just me and im fairly narrow in view.

(Playing Devil's Advocate here):

So, if I practiced (and taught) workable, effective self-protection techniques and drilled them in a realistic way, wore clothing that was comfortable and practical (say, shorts and tee shirts) and used my native language I couldn't call it karate? What if my 'kata' were a series of techniques and short combinations that I'd created for my own use and to help others practice those techniques?

I suppose it all depends on why we practice what we do. I want to train in a way that gives me an edge in a real-life confrontation. From my reseach that's what the old masters were doing too.

shoshinkanuk wrote:

to me it would be silly to call what you do karate, if there wasn’t a respectful link to the tradition, culture and history of the art, direct or indirect- but that is just me and I’m fairly narrow in view.

I think it is that direct or indirect link that is generally all we have when it comes to calling an approach “karate” or not. I’m not suggesting that we need, or should have, a criteria that people must meet before they can use the term “karate” legitimately. People are free to call what they do what they want. However, the way it tends to work is almost like a surname with “karate” being passed from teacher to student; regardless of evolutions along the way.

So for those that use the term “karate”, when we follow the linage back, someone in that line almost always trained in traditional karate with a linage back to the founders of the art. Sure, what they may do may have moved quite a long way from what people would generally recognise as karate (no gis, no Japanese terms, no kata, etc) but it still draws from the same source and hence goes by the term “karate”.

The Thursday sessions I attend (grades ranging from 4th dan to 8th dan) are conducted in shorts and t-shirts, we use English for all the techniques used, and train in a very “western” way … but it’s still karate to me and everyone there. The reason being we are all from that linage.

Now if a guy who was not part of that linage – i.e. no connection to the art originating in Okinawa – but who also trained in a shorts and t-shirt, etc. I personally don’t think it would be right to use “karate” … which shows how meaningless the term can be!

I guess the surname analogy is a good one; it tells us where we come from, but it tells us little about what we are. Likewise, “karate” tells us of the origin of what is being practised, but is tells us little about what is actually being practised.

All the best,

Iain

Practical Karate or Karate-Jutsu – Is it cultural evolution?

I tend to think of it anthropologically, in terms of culture.  Not necessarily the actual culture of inception (i.e Okinawan, Chinese, etc) but in terms of a shared martial arts culture. If I practice Karate, does it share the norms of others around the world that practice it? In the U.S.in the recent past, that meant using dojo Japanese, wearing Gi and Obi, and role-playing at being Japanese while in the dojo.  If that is the relative standard to prove you do karate, then there it is. I think that has changed a bit in the last 20-30 year though.

Is a shared approach of physical solutions to self-defense problems, another possible cultural norm. Does the aggregate use the same basic movement philosophy and attack and defense tactics? If members of that group are similar in approach, they will tend to exchange ideas and knowledge more freely.

Simply sharing a lineage might also. But if the cultural ceremonies (kata, kihon, or tactics) differ excessively, the less likely members or groups will continue relations (e.g. a political break up of an organization).

In my opinion, it is difficult to say who is "in" the group and who is "out" based on relative norms.  I tend to support the “physical approach to self-defense problems outlook” on classifying myself as a karate-ka or not. Others might base it on the Dojo culture discriminator.

I am first and foremost a karate-ka that refuses to be limited by self imposed cultural restrictions. Thus I train in civilian clothes at times, use English and/or Japanese for training, and may, or may not, do formal Reshiki for beginnings and endings of class. I use the traditional Okianwan paradigm of Kihon, Kata, and Kumite, but I try to apply it to my environment, realistically, in the here and now. I freely borrow things that work from other people / systems, and I always look for better ways to use karate.

But at what point does an individual or group who utilizes the Shu-Ha-Ri principle become too culturally different and get separated from their parent martial culture?  If we are all doing our jobs we should evolve.  But when the differences are too much, then we begin to have labeling problems… Do I do Combatives or  Taditional Karate? Yes!

My opinion is that what we used to think of as "Karate" is changing. Forums like this are an indicator of that change. As we collectively evolve from our brothers and sisters that apply their karate differently, we may need to seek other labels (or modify them). As the Okinawans renamed Chinese Kung Fu, and the Japanese renamed the Ryukyu arts, so we may have to reinvent our labels.

Dave Fivecoat

Hi Dave,

Great post! Liked it lots and thought you brought out some really good points.

Dave5 wrote:

at what point does an individual or group who utilizes the Shu-Ha-Ri principle become too culturally different and get separated from their parent martial culture?

Is separation possible? A parent is always a parent no matter how different their offspring becomes. Funkaknosi made the point in “Karate-Do: My Way of Life” that karate had changed massively in his lifetime; but he obviously still considered both the karate he did as a child and the karate of his time to both be “karate”.

Whether we keep the name “karate” or not is a judgment call I feel. But I don’t think we can “evolve out of it” because there has never been a “static it” to use as a datum measure how far we have moved away from.

Dave5 wrote:

I am first and foremost a karate-ka that refuses to be limited by self imposed cultural restrictions. Thus I train in civilian clothes at times, use English and/or Japanese for training, and may, or may not, do formal Reshiki for beginnings and endings of class. I use the traditional Okinawan paradigm of Kihon, Kata, and Kumite, but I try to apply it to my environment, realistically, in the here and now. I freely borrow things that work from other people / systems, and I always look for better ways to use karate.

It’s a very similar situation with me. And I see this as being entirely traditional. To take one example, the gi was adopted to as part of the “marketing drive” in mainland Japan. It’s only been around for a relatively short time and was adopted to make the art more appealing to a certain culture. If any westerns were to drop the “traditional” gi in favour of civilian clothing, then that’s a return to the “pre-gi” days … you could make a case to say that’s more traditional!

The Okinawans adopted Chinese systems to fit their culture. The Japanese adopted Okinawan systems to fit their culture. I fail to see why westerners should not be permitted to continue the tradition? To my mind, any “cultural changes” are part of the ever evolving art that is karate. We have great roots, and we should draw from those roots to continue to grow. Isn’t that what roots are for?

All the best,

Iain

PS Once again Dave – great post!

Lee Richardson wrote:

shoshinkanuk wrote:

A fairly solid way to conclude if what you do is indeed 'karate'  IMO is are you using the traditional karate kata within your system.

Also, to me it would be silly to call what you do karate, if there wasnt a respectful link to the traditon,culture and history of the art, direct or indirect- but that is just me and im fairly narrow in view.

(Playing Devil's Advocate here):

So, if I practiced (and taught) workable, effective self-protection techniques and drilled them in a realistic way, wore clothing that was comfortable and practical (say, shorts and tee shirts) and used my native language I couldn't call it karate? What if my 'kata' were a series of techniques and short combinations that I'd created for my own use and to help others practice those techniques?

I suppose it all depends on why we practice what we do. I want to train in a way that gives me an edge in a real-life confrontation. From my reseach that's what the old masters were doing too.

Hi Lee,

First thing is of course anyone can call whatever they do whatever they want, thats their buisness. I personally wouldn't recognise what you describe as 'karate' thats all, that doesn't devalue it in any way.

Karate is a Japanese word, eluding to a Japanese art - of course theres no real fixed awnser but I feel it's important to respect that, I hate it when people label Taekwondo or Kickboxing as 'karate', they have their own ways etc etc.

Of course im narrow minded on this, I belong to a very traditional Okinawan Ryu - we often don't wear full Dogi, we have minamum formality, and train with anyone - but our art is from Okinawa, and done in a certain way according to the tradition - with some room for personal expression of course (shu ha ri concept).

I think many of us like karate, and have extensive backgrounds in the art and find benefit in not dropping the term, maybe effort invested, marketing and not losing face all has a part to play - but if we are learning, seriously, other arts and changing what we do from when we did 'karate' alone then it is no longer karate IMO, and we should be clear about that.

I don't feel karate is for everyone and is the ultimate in anything, it just works for me and I love the traditon I belong to - im even happy that if it was all about effectivness for me then I would go do something else (proberly Thai Boxing and Judo underpinned by decent modern RBSD), but it is effective enough for my needs for sure.

As a final thought for the morning on this one, again if any traditional Japanese or Okinawan recognised kata are central to your study then your proberly ok calling what you do karate IMO. Even better if you say 'ouse' all the time........LOL

Lee Richardson wrote:

I find my interests (and therefore my study and training) moving away from traditonal karate and towards modern combatives. 

Do I need to make a choice? Can the two co-exist? 

I wonder what you mean by "modern combatives". To me there are no modern techniques, all the techniques we use today have been used for millennia past. Certainly the two can co-exist as we develop and change. Just look at the English language; we have a modern "text" language and the proper written language working side by side and hopefully never the twain shall meet, although some words are creeping into the OED.

Therefore we can still recognise where our karate came from and develop it to suit our requirements.

For me it's always worth bearing in mind that 'Karate' per se doesn't actually exist.

At least there is no one system, way or approach that can claim to be karate.

Karate is an umbrella term for a whole range of empty handed arts in the same way that 'Field sports' would be an umbrella term covering football, hockey, rugby etc. 

Interestingly, Field Sports would of course include any 'new' sports that have been, or will be, developed in the future as long as they are still played on a field. 

A useful catch-all but pretty meaningless in wider scheme of things.

Gavin Mulholland wrote:

Karate is an umbrella term for a whole range of empty handed arts in the same way that 'Field sports' would be an umbrella term covering football, hockey, rugby etc.

I've heard you use that analogy before and I think it’s superb (so much in fact that I now use it a lot myself ;-). The view expressed is not only totally accurate, but it is also what all karateka need to understand / accept for the benefit of karate’s future. Viewing karate as a group of systems is so much healthier than viewing karate as a single entity that only has one legitimate expression (as is sadly still all too common).

All the best,

Iain

I have to agree with Gavin in that karate covers a wide range of practices. To me it's sort of like Judo and wrestling. If you place two people on the mat in GIs then its Judo. But, if you place two people on the mat in shorts and tee shirts its wrestling. If one contestant grapples in shorts and the other in a gi then you have a judoka fighting a wrestler.

I think one of the problems plaguing karate today is that many people forget just how eclectic its beginnings really were. Only after being introduced to Japan did the rigid guidleines and strict system policies appear. Prior to that karate-te-tode-tudi, was a very eclectic and very holisitc style of fighting.  By holisitic I mean it encompassed striking, grappling, joint locks, self development and physcial development. Even when I was first introduced to karate back in the early 70's it was aneclectic practice. Not only did we perform kata in my first dojo but we boxed, trained Judo, lifted weights, performed self-defense and fought full contact. The only rule was "don't change the kata," which was fine since most of us concentrated on fighting. With the onset of the 1980's and the "Back to Tradition" way of doing things, which swept through karate like wildfire,  everyone wanted to become a purist and white Gis became the norm and one only trained in the manner the Okinawan's did back in the so called day.  Never mind the Okinawan's hosited rice filled buckets because they hadn't been introduced to western weight lifiting, or hit makiwara boards because they didn't have punching bags.  

Honestly I feel much of the traditionlist movement we see today is a romantic longing for something that never existed, or else someone reading more into what the Japanese did with karate than what the Japanese deserve. Hand to hand fighting has a lot of similarities no matter what culture the style evolved in. Physical fitness, good hand and eye coordination, kicking, striking with the fist-elbow-fingers-forearm, grappling, sport and self-defense realms, these are found in almost all forms of civil combat that were developed prior to the 20th century and some that were developed after the turn of the century.

You can practice karate for meditation (solo kata practice is great for this) but it dosen't mean that's the only reason to practice karate. The same goes with self-defense and competition. You can also rely moreso on grappling techniques than striking in karate, but that dosen't mean your karate is classical jujutsu. Nor does it mean your karate is any better than the person who places more emphasis on striking than they do grappling. Personally what I feel the individual should do is identify the reason why they're practicing karate and stick with that. If its for mediation and stress relief then fine, you're doing esoteric karate. It its for self-defense then okay, you're a self-defense karate-ka. The same goes with competition. Just keep in mind that your karate will probably differ from someone else's, but it dosen't mean that they or you hold the key to everything. And along the same lines its important to note that one culture's karate is another culture's kung-fu-boxing-wrestling, etc. Most importanty though is to have fun at what you're doing. Fun damn it, I said have some fun.

Mike R

michael rosenbaum wrote:

I think one of the problems plaguing karate today is that many people forget just how eclectic its beginnings really were. Only after being introduced to Japan did the rigid guidelines and strict system policies appear. Prior to that karate-te-tode-tudi, was a very eclectic and very holistic style of fighting.

Very true! I feel that karate is benefiting from a growing number of practitioners returning to an eclectic / “measure validity by functionality” approach. I also see that as being a return to tradition rather than a break from it. “Traditional” tends to be defined by the snapshot of history a given group or person wishes to use as their datum.

The rigid guidelines and strict policies are something that filled the gap with a move away from functionality. When you are no longer measuring by effect, what do you measure progress by? The answer seems to have been aesthetics, “style purity” and other arbitrary measures of “correctness”.

michael rosenbaum wrote:

Just keep in mind that your karate will probably differ from someone else's, but it doesn’t mean that they or you hold the key to everything.

Totally agree. Have a clearly defined goal, train towards that goal, accept that “karate” has many incarnations and none of them are “all things to all men”, and enjoy “your karate”. Do that and it’s hard to go wrong.

Great post Michael!

All the best,

Iain

When can something be called or not called karate? I have thought quite hard on this one and I suppose that if you strip away all the associated connotations to the word and look at it in the most broad terms possible, the only real criteria for a practice to be called karate is that it came from/ evolved from another discipline of that name.

Regardless of the purpose, technical content or practice regimen, as long as the art came from the tradition and lineage of karate then I feel it is fine to call it such. Of course, further labels such as "practical", "sport", "full contact", "classical" etc are desireable and quite neccesary in further differentiating the myriad strands that have evolved and letting people understand the differences. 

I am sure some people will disagree with this definition and they are free to do so but I cannot concieve of a martial art calling itself karate that dosent have even a minor link to any other karate lineage. Does anyone out there feel ok in referring to muay thai, boxing, aikido, tai chi chuan or Silat as karate? Technically they may be similar or even identical to methods and practices found in a karate lineage of course but does that mean they can be called the same thing? Don't we have the term "martial arts" for that?

I found myself agreeing with the proposal above that karate had to have kata at its core to be karate but the more I think about it the more I feel that is not the case. There are a number of karate groups in Japan who no longer practice kata and still feel perfectly justified in using the karate label (as well as many who dont of course). If the teachings contained within the kata are taught in isolation from them does that magically stop them being karate? 

The only caveat to this definition though is that the first karate had to come from somewhere. I suppose it is eminently possible that back in the late 17th century (or 14th or 16th depending on which historical theory you g o by) there were some stuffy "traditionalist" types in China and the old Ryukyu kingdom telling the "karateka" of the day that what they were doing was not traditional and that they couldnt call their practice chuan fa and had to call it toudi instead. There were also perhaps some pragmatic souls on the internet of the day having a very similar conversation to the one we are all having now!... 

Gavin J Poffley wrote:

…the only real criteria for a practice to be called karate is that it came from / evolved from another discipline of that name.

I agree and think that it’s the only accurate was to define “karate” as almost all other attempts exclude something currently operating under the name. I feel it’s a bit like a surname. I’m an “Abernethy” and so is my Dad, and so is my brother; but we are not the same … but we share a lineage.

It’s worth noting that governing bodies for karate / karate associations have always struggled to define “karate” too. It’s pretty easy to do if you want to take the route of “what we do is karate and nothing else is”, but to truly define “karate” in its widest sense is not simple.

All the best,

Iain