8 posts / 0 new
Last post
G.B Silva
G.B Silva's picture
The root of the problem?

Oss! 

Hello all. This is my first post on this forum so I hope I don't infringe any rule and post on the correct place.

So, a little bit of background story to set things on the right path. It has been the purpose of all my studies every since becoming black belt in Shotokan a few years ago to understand why there are so many misunderstandings amongst all practioners from different styles, schools or dojo's and why there are so many different interpretations on the same topic. Recently I came to a few conclusions but I feel it's still a very premature idea. 

Where I come from (Brazil) the focus of all our training has always been the sports/championship aspect, thus we've been practicing what now I see people describing as 3k karate. There has never been a incentive to study Kata applications, vital points, grappling, etc. The self defense aspect of karate has never ever been the focus of our training, and yet we always have had the feeling that we, as karate practioners, have the power to enter combat whenever and however needed. It's a silly and common mistake I see shared with my colleagues. 

Truth is, even though we all know very well how to deliver a good punch/kick, we've never been instructed on the ways of self defense as kata teaches. What I have came to realizing is that this has never been a thing in my country ever since karate appeared. This made me question even more about why did the Masters which came from Japan to teach here had taught us this way in the first place. Was it a question of trying to make a living for themselves by focusing on the sports aspect of karate (which attracts much more students, specially teenagers) or possibly because they didn't have the correct instruction to pass on? I know for a fact that such as everything in life, nothing can be boiled down to a single and simple answer, which is why I decided to open this conversation with you all. 

All this curiosity made me go after the roots of karate. I started to look at information online for different points of view on certain subjects, and them ended finding and reading some of Funakoshi's books - specially because I kept finding some of his quotes on Iain's articles and this triggered my curiosity even more - and came to some depressing conclusions that I want so share and see others opinions on the topic.

I am absolutely convinced that Master Funakoshi had been instructed well in the means of self defense in the way Kata teaches, otherwise he wouldn't 'train the three Tekki for almost 10 years' and that he would teach his students in the same way he was taught. What strikes me is to see some of his books teaching karate in a manner that much resembles the 3k type that we practice today. Specifically speaking, the book that shocked me was 'Karate Do Kyohan', which taught the defenses and attacks of the Kata as merely blocks and punchs, while we see that a punch can be a grab, a push, a jab, etc. like we see in some of Iain's applications.

This post is already very long, but please bear with me. I know karate had a complete overhaul in the 1900+ and many applications had to be left out of training and such. My point here is that I felt a bit discouraged to keep looking for more answers since the 'founder' of the style I practice had lead students to know only the  surface level of karate and this had spread to all my teachers who think of karate as nothing more than punching and kicking. Who think that a Gedan Barai Uke can only be applied as a kick block and so on. What kind of evidence can I show to people that we are just 'playing in the branches of a big tree' if the one and only most revered Master by many, couldn't/can't show us the right way anymore?

I am struggling in my own club to show some different ideas since I am still Shodan and many of the teachers I talk to won't take a no as an answer. I was hoping to find some concrete evidence on books to fundament my arguments. I still keep on studying, searching and trying to be critic about everything I see/hear/read online, because there isn't a reliable source for me outside internet. And of course, the fact that almost none of my teachers will acknowledge anything that comes straight out of the internet.

I hope to see some opinions, advices possibly and if possible, see Iain's take on the matter, although I feel like I already know what his answers would be.

Thank you if you took your time to read through. I'm very sorry for any mistyping. Truly sorry if anyone get offended by anything said here.

Cya,

G.B. Silva

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Hi G.B Silva,

G.B Silva wrote:
This is my first post on this forum so I hope I don't infringe any rule and post on the correct place.

Welcome aboard!

G.B Silva wrote:
This made me question even more about why did the Masters which came from Japan to teach here had taught us this way in the first place.

Basically, it is because it was what they were taught … and they were taught that because it was the form of karate that was popular and was capable of spreading. It was the “budo karate” that sat alongside the other popular martial practises of the time i.e. Judo, Kendo, etc.

G.B Silva wrote:
I am absolutely convinced that Master Funakoshi had been instructed well in the means of self defense in the way Kata teaches, otherwise he wouldn't 'train the three Tekki for almost 10 years' and that he would teach his students in the same way he was taught. What strikes me is to see some of his books teaching karate in a manner that much resembles the 3k type that we practice today …

… Specifically speaking, the book that shocked me was 'Karate Do Kyohan',

I assume you are talking about the 1973 edition of Karate-do Kyohan, because that is the one most English-speaking people have. Funakoshi died in 1957. That English language version of the book has had most of the pictures of Funakoshi removed and is largely the work of the translator (Tsutomu Ohshima) who is the demonstrator of all the methods in the book.

The revised edition of Kyohan – upon which Tsutomu Ohshima’s English language version is based – came out in 1958; after Funakoshi died. However, Funakoshi did write a preface for the book while alive where he lamented what he saw as karate’s decline. It also recorded in the book that Funakoshi was “deeply troubled by the question of republishing the book”. Funakoshi himself wrote:

“As a result of the social disorder that followed the end of World War Two, the karate world was dispersed, as were many other things. Quite apart from the decline in the level of technique during these times …

“… Although one might claim such changes are only the natural result of the expansion of karate-do, it is not evident that one should view such a result with rejoicing rather than with some misgiving.”

So what we have is a English translation – in which the translator has had a significant input, and added and removed whole sections in order to reflect the karate of the 1970s – based on a Japanese language book that came out 20 year earlier, after Funakoshi’s death, that Funakoshi expressed strong misgivings about, and did not play a part in revising. It’s therefore can’t be taken as the definitive work of Funakoshi despite the title of “Master Text”. That said, the we can compare it to the original 1930s version of the book.

In Funakoshi’s first book in the 1920s (Renten Goshin Karate Jutsu) he simply describes the movements of the kata. The 1930s edition of Karate-Do Kyohan is something of a “halfway house” between older karate and the 3K karate that was growing in popularity. For example, we do see some of the “X-step sparring” drills – badly aped from Judo and Kendo practises – done by Funakoshi and friends; which were absent from earlier works. However, we also can see and read descriptions of locks, throws, references to older application practises, advice on pre-emption, etc.

I hope that helps put the book in context. It has some very useful information in it, but we can’t view it as being the definitive and final word on karate.

G.B Silva wrote:
I was hoping to find some concrete evidence on books to fundament my arguments.

It is there; spread across numerous texts and sources. What people sometimes want is a single text that reveals all. You won’t find that because books need an audience to be viable. Karate was in decline and a minority pursuit before it adopted the “do-ethos”. There are no books from that time period because there would be no point in writing such a book (you’d personally know most other karateka). It’s only when the number of karateka explodes that books become viable. All the books are therefore written for a “3k audience”. It’s the references to the older practises in these books that are of most value to us. Such references are dispersed across many texts and we need to collate them to get a picture of “pre-budo karate”. I’ve been told a few times that I should write such a book, but in lieu of that, this podcast will help:

https://iainabernethy.co.uk/content/masters-speak-podcast

Funakoshi was clear that the karate in the text books was not the karate of the past:

“Time change, the world changes, and obviously the martial arts must change too. The karate that high school students practise today is not the same karate that was practised even are recently as ten years ago, and it is a long way indeed from the karate I learned when I was a child in Okinawa”. – Karate-Do: My Way of Life.

G.B Silva wrote:
I hope to see some opinions, advices possibly and if possible, see Iain's take on the matter, although I feel like I already know what his answers would be.

I hope the above has not been overly predictable and adds some value. One final thought is that we need to draw on the roots of karate to encourage new growth (that’s what roots are for). The functionality and logic of a method is the true demonstration of its value. More on this here:

https://iainabernethy.co.uk/article/history-it-thing-past

All the best,

Iain

G.B Silva
G.B Silva's picture

Hi.

Indeed sensei Iain, you continue to amuse me by your capability to surprise me. You certainly put some new key elements to foment my search and study. Although the fact that some of the content from the book being changed did pass my mind and a plausible reason for this book having the info laid down the way it is. 

I knew coming to this forum would eventually lead me to answers like yours. I'm glad I signed in. It's difficult enough to get good information from my personal teachers as it is to get hold of books. Not only that, but you proved the point that having a single book is not a definitive source of information. Having different content among revisions, editions, translations, there is little to rely on if you only have one source.

The thing is, as my prediction seems to be reassuring itself more and more, very few (close to none) of the black belts I know have the curiosity, the time, the will or the need to study karate deeply. What I find is a bunch of misguided teachers who don't know how critical thinking works, don't know how to look up information and or simply refuse to do so, for numerous reasons that I shall not list.

Then again, thank you for this insight. Your work has motivated me to search, study and look up for answers that are helping me develop my karate practice. I only wish to have the patience and the will to keep on this track, so that one day I can spread words of a much richer martial art to all people of my country.

Cya,

G.B. Silva

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Hi G.B Silva,

G.B Silva wrote:
you continue to amuse me by your capability to surprise me. You certainly put some new key elements to foment my search and study.

I’m always here to help and I’m pleased you found that of some use.

G.B Silva wrote:
The thing is, as my prediction seems to be reassuring itself more and more, very few (close to none) of the black belts I know have the curiosity, the time, the will or the need to study karate deeply.

Some people are content with a superficial understanding of karate. Where that becomes a real problem is when they believe their superficial understanding to be a full understanding. Thankfully, the information and networks for those wanting to explore their art more deeply are now firmly in place.

G.B Silva wrote:
What I find is a bunch of misguided teachers who don't know how critical thinking works, don't know how to look up information and or simply refuse to do so, for numerous reasons that I shall not list.

I do find this a great shame because they completely miss the efficiently, the logic, the depth and the full flavour of the art they are practising. To each their own, and it’s good that you are choosing to dig deeper.

G.B Silva wrote:
I only wish to have the patience and the will to keep on this track, so that one day I can spread words of a much richer martial art to all people of my country.

Stick with it. The value of a more holistic and authentic approach to karate is self-evident when people open their minds to it.

All the best,

Iain

JuhaK
JuhaK's picture

I don't see there are any problems. I think karate and kata is great because there are so many ways how to practise it. It can be 3K karate and practised only as a physical exercise and perfect kihon and/or bunkai can be added and practise practical self-defence, or both. Neither is right or wrong.

If you think guns and shooting for example. You can practise precision shooting and be excellent at it, compete and win Olympic medals and that is fine if that is what you like to do. But that doesn't make you a perfect hunter or professional soldier, for those you need something more.

JuhaK

G.B Silva
G.B Silva's picture

Hello Juhak,

Let me tell you why I think this is a problem. Obviously I can't speak for everyone else, so I will tell you about what I've experienced personally. This method of teaching has lead to a BIG misunderstanding of what karate was supposed to be made for as all the black belts I know, have only been instructed as an athlete, to do well on competitions. 

Maybe you don't see the  problem yet, but think about this. I have seen people joining our classes saying their purpose there was to learn how to defend themselves, since karate is so feared as a martial art. This kind of situation hurts me because I see teachers who think their training method can prepare anyone to fight in a live situation. They think a punch(Oi zuki) from 10 feet or a mawashi geri will be the kind of attack someone would use in a self defense scenario, and don't ever give it a second thought. 

Let me go a bit further on this. They emphasize the importance of 3~5 steps sparring, where the attacker does 3 punches/kicks and the defender only moves backwards(in a straight line, always) and in the end, a counter punch is thrown. I am sure there is a Japanese term for this kind of training, but I think I described well. Anyway, I have to put here my disagreement with this  kind of training, because what it teaches, is a flawed way (in my mind) of using blocks, of  movement, of intention, and what a real fight looks like. This kind of training is recorded in books such as Karate do Nyumon, with the name of Ten no Kata(I believe so) and is revered by my teachers whom make the sayings from this kind of book to be as one from the Holy Bible. Since Funakoshi's name is in the cover, they assume everything should be followed mindlessly. As I have seen by my own readings and information I received here from Iain, one book alone cannot be the solo source of information. Many things are left out, many things are replaced by contemporary methods of training. And if that's the case, then who can we believe in?

It is this kind of approach to karate that I disagree with and think is utterly flawed. This kind of approach to karate that only shows the sports side of karate but still leads to making people blind to what they are being prepared to. This year, my club had recently affiliated with a different association. This association arranged seminars to make sure the black belts were in the same level of understanding. I saw every one of them 'trying' to apply techniques to control the adversary whom were attacking with Oi-zuki, Mae geri, etc. The result was laughable. Teachers with 30+ years of experience with competitions, teaching and competing, had no clue how to perform a lock, a choke, etc. I think both parties were doing a bad job, in my opinion, as harsh as I may be by saying that. Fights don't occur by one assuming a zenkutsu dachi and aiming a punch to the other's chest, as a guy whom is being harassed doesn't just walk backwards blocking punches and kicks. 

There is a big part of karate that is being left out of the trainings, as we can relate to Iain's Article: Bunkai : karate's forgotten 95%. There is only so much a man can master in a lifetime. One has to decide which branch of karate to follow and stick to it, but not get ahead of yourself and think you have mastered everything there is to learn. What these self-proclaimed masters have is the kind of attitude that makes a person who knows nothing of martial arts, think they know all there is to know. Teachers who read 1 book and think they have all the info needed. Who don't ever question what they learn and don't want to be questioned. 

My research about the roots of karate has only shown me how the information is being lost more and more by these books translations, republishings, quotes misunderstood, teachers misguided and students who aren't critic enough and don't have the passion to look for more answers.

I hope I made my point clear,

Cya,

G.B. Silva

JuhaK
JuhaK's picture

Hi

I totally agree with you. Perhaps I should have been more specific. What I mean was that I don't have any problem with 3K karate or sport karate as long as those who do it are honest and admit it's only athletic not practical self defence.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

JuhaK wrote:
Hi I totally agree with you. Perhaps I should have been more specific. What I mean was that I don't have any problem with 3K karate or sport karate as long as those who do it are honest and admit it's only athletic not practical self defence.

I too am of the view that people need to be clear on their goals, and then practise with a view to achieving those goals. It’s 100% OK to want to practise exercise, art or sport and then train in a focused manner for those things. Where problems arise is when people have a different goal and are being mislead / are misleading themselves that their unfocused training will deliver on that goal. You can’t train exclusively in exercise, art or sport and expect self-protection skills to develop by default.

There are two caveats I personally think are important:

1) Self-protection is not the ultimate “gold standard” of karate. Those of us with a focus on that side of things need to be careful not to devalue karate’s other aspects. The other elements of karate have their own inherent value and it’s up to the individual practitioner to determining their personal hierarchy based on their own training goals. We should not superimpose our values on to the other branches of karate and then judge on that basis.

https://iainabernethy.co.uk/article/defence-combat-sports

2) It is entirely possible to train in more than one facet. We don’t need to make binary choices or limit ourselves to one facet alone. We can, if we so chose, practise a kata for the art of it, compete with it, and still work on the practical function and application of it. If we want to, we can spar in a competitive way and a combative way. There is sometimes the worry that we may “mix it up” in a crucial moment; but that only really applies if things have been mixed up in training. We can train for fun, fitness and function if we want to. It’s vital that we have a very clear idea on what we are training for at any given moment, but that does not mean we have to limit our training to one element. Multiple training goals is very common. Also, it’s often been my experience that those who claim a single goal often have multiple goals but are blending them into one which again leads to unfocused training.

https://iainabernethy.co.uk/content/martial-map-free-audio-book

With those caveats being expressed, it is vitality important to have focused training. Training for one thing in the belief it will develop skills in another area by default is a big and pervasive problem.

JuhaK wrote:
I don't have any problem with 3K karate or sport karate as long as those who do it are honest and admit it's only athletic not practical self defence.

I always find this an interesting moral question. If people know that what they are practising is not appropriate for self-protection, but they present it as such, then it’s straight forward that they are being dishonest.

If people don’t know that what they are practising is inappropriate for self-protection are they being dishonest? They are certainly mistaken, but the beliefs they have can still be honestly held and honestly expressed. I would suggest that there is still a moral failing there though because they have not exercised due diligence in checking if the training they offer will deliver on the aims they have stated. However, where it gets a little greyer is if the information they have been given leads them to believe that such due diligence has already been exercised by those they learnt from. This is why there is an onus on those like us to provide the information and the alternative so people can then make informed and honest choices about their karate and what they want it to be.

All the best,

Iain