Masters here? masters there?

michael rosenbaum wrote:

Not to sound crast, but I'm always amazed with the western infatuation where Asian traditions, culture and fighting arts are concerned. Frequently we mention the names of Funakoshi, Motobu, Musashi, etc, etc as examples of "Traditional MAsters" With that in mind I'd like to ask the following questions.

1. Will there ever be a time when western practitioners are looked upon with the same respect as Funakoshi, Motobu etc?

2. At what point should we let the "old masters' die and embrace what is being taught by today's karate-ka/fighters?

3. Why do we automatically assume someone of Japanese heritage knows more about karate than a western practiioner?

Thanks!

 

Mike

Great thread Michael, some really excellent conversations on here lately.

1- I hope so, without wishing to name drop or kiss anyone's butt, there are a number of people doing some fantastic stuff in the past twenty years or so that I think have done tons to keep karate alive and growing rather than just trying to 'preserve' what other people taught.

2.- I hope that the two aren't mutually exclusive, and that there is a bit of a thread reaching through from the old masters up to the guys we are talking about in question #1, and then to regular joes like me, that's the whole point of doing a 'style' or even just an art isn't it? The thing is figuring out just what it was that the old guys taught, bereft of all the baggage that comes with our attempts at interpreting it!

3.- Personally I don't, and this is one of my pet peeves. On the other hand,  unless we have the knowledge to seperate what is trappings and what is substance, we also shouldn't neccessarily dismiss the Japanse or Okinawan methods out of hand in favor of more modern, familiar ones,. IMO of course. At any rate, authenticiy in Karate is about what you do, not your pedigree.

An interesting question indeed!

It is undeniable that there is a widespread attitude of venerating the "old masters" from the Oriental arts parent cultures over and above the elite modern practitioners from other cultures. I feel that this is somewhat down to the fact that psychologically they are still percieved as cultural products of those nations and it is the natural expectation that people from that culture will be more exposed to them and thus have a deeper understanding. In the same way we would all imagine the best Italian chefs to come from Italy or the best bagpipe players to be Scottish and their upbringing to have given them an edge from incresed familiarity. Of course this is not always true but it is a very natural thought process. It also goes double for niche and specialised cultural practices.

In addition to that, the oriental martial arts have, for better or worse, always had a culture of mysticism and obfuscation which increases the importance of those leader figures with a deep knowledge. If the full nature of the practice in question is open and obvious (such as for example in boxing) then it is a lot easier to judge experts on their objective skill but when the boundaries of understanding are not clear you have to rely on other indicators such as seniority and the implied cultural familiarity mentioned above.

This is not helped of course by the Confucian cultural norms and attitudes that came with many of the fighting arts themselves and in some cases have been exaggerated and warped in the West to almost comedic levels. This mindset is perhaps the complete antithesis of European notions of scientific progress and has it that the closer to a source of skill and knowledge a person is the greater they will be and that later generations of practitioners will be further removed from the source and thus inferior. Interestingly enough in the case of karate this has a small grain of truth in it due to how so much of the art has been lost or misenterpreted over the course of the 20th century (of course this does not take into account efforts at recovering and reverse engineering that knowledge).

As for whether this state of affairs will continue indefinitely I would have to say probably not. While attitudes like this will clearly take a long time to vanish entirely, especially in a culture like the above that supports them, I feel that as more and more non-native culture "masters" emerge the perceptions will have to change. A good example is the rise of Brazillian jujutsu and the respect the practitioners of that stream are afforded (even in Japan). This does just lead to a transfer of the unthinking respect from Japan to Brazil in some cases and there are traditionalist backlashes but is clearly an example of the maturing of non Japanese practitioners in an originally Japanese art. 

Ultimately I think it is about time. Modern karate has only really existed for one or two generations outside of its native context (with a similar timeframe for many Asian arts) and although there are clearly many non-native exponents of equal or greater skill, there is still a time lag for general perceptions to catch up. 

Familiarity probably plays a part too. Most karateka in Europe or America will probably never have trained with a Japanese teacher or real, average Japanese students (as opposed to the elite competitors and guest instructors who visit on seminars) and so only have the tall tales of the old masters and a fantasy image of inhuman training. Having personally lived and trained in Japan for quite a time I can say that those kinds of misconceptions dissapear rather quickly. You see just as many lazy students, students with awful technique, those that try hard but somehow just don't make it and instructors who clearly know nothing as you do really good guys and knowledsgeable instructors. You also get to understand that they are just regular people too.

An intresting thread! Here are some of my initial thoughts:

michael rosenbaum wrote:

1. Will there ever be a time when western practitioners are looked upon with the same respect as Funakoshi, Motobu etc?

I think there will be. At the moment there can be little doubt that influence of the “Funkoshi, Mabuni, Motobu, Miyagi generation” has been the most significant; and hence it is entirely understandable that they are viewed as they are. As western practitioners continue to play their part in karate’s evolution it is certain that, in time, the more influential ones will be acknowledged for their contribution in much the same way that the Chinese, Okinawan and Japanese practitioners of the past have been. There are, of course, many modern day Asian practitioners who will also be held in a similar esteem to Funakoshi et al with the passage of time. I feel it is more to with the passage of time in order to fully understand the ramifications of an individual’s contribution and influence than east / west.

It’s probably too soon for anyone of the “modern era” to have their contribution meaningfully measured ; and due to the relatively recent spread of karate to the west, it will take a little time before westerners are held in a similar status to the greats of the past. We have to hope so anyway because if that’s not the case it would mean the karateka based in the west have done nothing of value in the last 70 or so years.

michael rosenbaum wrote:

2. At what point should we let the "old masters' die and embrace what is being taught by today's karate-ka/fighters?

I don’t think we should ever let them die, but we should continue to grow and develop. Not a single one of the old masters said, “Karate is perfect now and hence any ‘developments’ would retrograde steps and therefore should be avoided and condemned.” Plenty (including Funakoshi) were open about the need for continual growth. A healthy tree needs strong roots and if you cut the tree off from the roots it will die. However, it should always be remembered that the purpose of those roots is enable growth and that means new branches. I feel the old masters would turn in their graves if they knew their “semi-deification” was causing the atrophy of the art they had worked so hard to make grow. We should embrace the “new” as the healthy and inevitable growth of the “old” that it is.

michael rosenbaum wrote:

3. Why do we automatically assume someone of Japanese heritage knows more about karate than a western practitioner?

Karate spread to the western world from Japan, so at a point in time all the best karateka were Japanese; and that may be where this view finds its roots? However, we need to acknowledge that all part of the world now have very able karateka who are every bit as talented and knowledgeable as their modern Japanese counterparts.

In very basic terms, karate history can be summed up as: the Okinawans took Chinese systems and made them relevant to Okinanwa. The Japanese then took those Okinawan systems and made them relevant to Japan. I see no reason at all why continuing this traditional development in the west (and elsewhere) should be seen as problematic. It’s how things are supposed to work.

All the best,

Iain

1. Absolutely, I think the Funkoshi, Mabuni, Motobu, Miyagi generation inspired new generations to go boldly on, further and faster.
2. I don’t think the old masters should or will be forgotten (Let Die) as a prerequisite to embracing a more sophisticated understanding of the old masters concepts. How many times should you practice the same move repeatedly before we should ask ourselves, why can’t we take it further and be more practical with it?
3. Because we get tuned in to one channel of thought and forget how to question our own intelligence in preference for accepting someone else’s.

michael rosenbaum wrote:

Not to sound crast, but I'm always amazed with the western infatuation where Asian traditions, culture and fighting arts are concerned. Frequently we mention the names of Funakoshi, Motobu, Musashi, etc, etc as examples of "Traditional MAsters" With that in mind I'd like to ask the following questions.

1. Will there ever be a time when western practitioners are looked upon with the same respect as Funakoshi, Motobu etc?

I would answer this with a further question: by whom?  The above karateka are accorded respect by modern day karateka, but I would say that there are probably western martial greats accorded similar respect by western martial artists.  How is the Gracie family regarded?  How about 'modern' boxing greats like Ali or Frazier?  Or competitive greats like Norris?

michael rosenbaum wrote:

2. At what point should we let the "old masters' die and embrace what is being taught by today's karate-ka/fighters?

That's a difficult one.  These guys are part of our heritage.  If I put my objective hats on, both as a historian and as a trainer, I can make the following statements which may be upsetting or controversial to many:

By modern standards these 'old masters' were most likely not as knowledgeable, experienced or technically proficient as even the top end of the 'average' martial arts instructor pool available today, let alone many of the instructors we might nominate as leaders in their field.  They have the reputation they do because as entrepreneurial innovators they moved from being among the few average to medium sized fish in a very small pond to being the few (karate coloured) fish in a much bigger pond.  

Why do we continue to laud them?  It is human nature to want to refer to a 'source' - an origins myth.  That is why we still buy books bearing their name even though many more detailed books have been written since.  Do we really need these old books?  The honest answer is no.  They are an item of interest.  We cannot reproduce their karate even if we try, and to be brutal, attempting to do so will not make us better karateka, it will just make us karateka who do something different.

At what point should we let them 'die'?  When 

a. what they had to say is no longer useful or relevant to our study or

b. every item of the above has been better expressed by someone else.

michael rosenbaum wrote:

3. Why do we automatically assume someone of Japanese heritage knows more about karate than a western practiioner?

We are mugs! :) On a more serious note I think there is a subconscious cop out here.  By accepting or believing that a Japanese person must know more about Karate than a western person we (as students) create an excuse for not being better karateka ourselves.

Something that seems to divide martial arts people from what I've seen in arguments, some quite heated, on martial arts websites, is how far we should follow Japanese/Korean traditions. Things like bowing to national flags other than ours, whether one should shake hands with visitng Korean/Japanese instructors and in general how far we should try to actually be Japanese/Korean when training. Should we be apeing cultures very different from ours just because we do a martial art from that country or should we as British/Europeans/Americans be training in our native languages and using customs we are used to and mean something to us?

I often feel that those who like to immerse themselves in the whole Japanese/Korean culture often feel those who don't have lesser skills in the martial arts than they do.

Hi Tez,

my take on this is the following. We all live in our countries with our own cultures. So there is nothing in my eyes that speaks against using the own culture related habits during the training. When you shake hands for a hello rather than to bow than that should be absolutely fine. Even the ritual of mokuso is a rather new one especially designed for school children that have problems with focusing on a thing. As an adult you should have no problem concentrating on the upcoming training without meditating.

On the other hand it is nice to know how to "behave" when visiting and training in japanese dojos.

Regards Holger