20 posts / 0 new
Last post
deltabluesman
deltabluesman's picture
When is it no longer karate?

When I was just starting out in my karate training, my instructor taught a lesson that had a major impact on me.  He explained that at its heart, karate is about fighting and what works.  And he emphasized that a karateka should be willing to adapt and to use what works, even if it isn't something that's part of the tradition.  As an example, he showed some very basic collar chokes that could be used if the fight ended up on the ground, and explained that even though they weren't usually taught as part of his (3K-style) of karate, we should be willing to use them if we had to.

I later came across a quote that meshed well with that lesson.  The quote was:

"One must not lose sight of the fact that Karate is 'all-in' fighting. Everything is allowed: every effective method (in no matter what other form of combat sport) exists in Karate, redirected under the dramatic conditions of a man’s desperate fight for life, using the means given to him by nature. This is why Karate is based on blows delivered with the hand, the foot, the head or the knee. Equally permissible are strangulations, throwing techniques, locks (though certain typically Karate methods are unusable in either boxing or Judo). This is one of the fascinating things about taking up Karate; this sensation of mastery over all the effective techniques brings an inner peace and calm which is difficult to find in combat sports using arms, or in those which contain the limitations and restrictions of a sporting objective."  Henry Plée

With this in mind, I've always felt like karate had a major advantage of being able to evolve and absorb the best of other styles . . .  that the core aspects of karate were its mindset and its purpose, rather than an untouchable curriculum that had been passed down through the ages.

But in today's world, it's not always clear where karate begins and where something else begins.  We have 3K karate, we have point sparring karate, we have new karate hybrids (i.e. Karate Combat https://www.karate.com/about/), we have Olympic karate, and we have bunkai-oriented pragmatic karate.  At a certain point, the term "karate" could theoretically become broad enough to encompass virtually any kind of empty-handed striking art.  And maybe this is a good thing?  

Yes, you could try to resolve the ambiguity by just pointing at definitions or at the original meaning of karate (i.e. China hand/empty hand).  But I tend to think that there's more than one right answer, and it seems to me that it could be an interesting topic for conversation.  Thoughts on this?

Marc
Marc's picture

An interesting topic, and I think you have already addressed some of the important points in your post.

However, here are my 2 or 3 cents on what can be called karate and what can't:

Katas as karate styles

Funakoshi and Mabuni stated that katas are at the heart of karate: "It is safe to say that karate begins and ends with kata." (Funakoshi) "In karate, the most important thing is kata." (Mabuni)

The Okinawan masters of the past where happy to learn any useful fighting skills they would encouter. However, it seems that they did not just incorporate everything and funnel all of it into one all-encompassing system. There's not just one single Okinawan karate system. Instead we have inherited quite a number of different katas which represent different fighting styles. Kata names like Chinto or Wanshu tell us that they represent the fighting style of a person by that name. We also have variations of katas with names like Matsumura No Passai which tells us that even interpretations of the same fighting style by different masters seemed worth recording.

Still, when Funakoshi tried to establish karate as a new martial art in Japan main land and was asked by the officials what styles there were in karate (because every decent Japanese martial art had styles) he did not answer "Passai, Kushanku, Naihanshi, ..." but "err, ..., Shuri-te, Naha-te and Tomari-te". So to him karate seemed to include all of the various katas. Rather he would differentiate by location names, even though Shuri, Naha and Tomari where really not that far apart and many of the katas where probably practiced in all three places.

Anyway, today we have dozens of katas and variations we can study. And when we analyse them (bunkai=analysis) we can try and reconstruct the different fighting methods recorded in them. That means there is a good chance that there is a fitting method for any student of karate.

So we (instructors) don't need to sell the one method that fits our own body type, preferences and capabilities as the single best one-size-fits-all solution. We can provide students with a variety of possible methods, one of which will best fit them.

Karate as a generic term

There was a time (the last decades of the last century, which sounds like very long ago ;-)) when the terms "karate" and "kung fu" were used more or less interchangeably by lay people. Any seemingly Asian martial art was "karate", "kung fu" or maybe "Judo".

Today we have many systems such as Aikido, Tae Kwon Do, Wing Tsun, Krav Maga, Kali, even HEMA, as well as MMA, Boxing, Kick-Boxing, K1, and many others. And I bet most people today still don't know or care about the differences.

Even among martials arts enthusiasts the term "karate" comprises of many different activities, such as sports kumite, competition kata and bunkai, 3K-karate, practical kata bunkai, self defense, and probably some more, not to mention the different modern karate "styles".

So is everything karate?

My personal view is that, on the one hand, every practical self-defence method can be called karate. And we should not hesitate to incorporate any useful method or technique into our karate toolbox. Maybe even create new katas to reflect other fighting systems.

On the other hand, I think that within the "market" of all the various martial arts out there, what makes karate unique is its tradition of kata. I feel that without kata - even if you would teach all the skills and methods of karate - it would just not be the same.

On the third hand (LOL), I think we have to acknowledge that karate is a broad term that is legitimately used to mean everything from sports to self-defense. And if we want to differentiate what we do from what others do we will have to use modifiers such as "practical" or "as an art", and even more importantly we will have to talk to people about how we practice karate.

Looking forward to read what others think.

Take care,

Marc  

Anf
Anf's picture

Funakoshi was quite clear when he wrote that karate is as much about personal / spiritual development as it is about fighting. He is also clear when he writes that even when it is used for fighting, it should be for self defence and not mindless violence or ego or pride (I can't remember how he words it, but I think that's his intent in a nutshell).

So when does it stop being karate? I guess when it's used for pride or ego or personal gain rather than spiritual development and self defence I guess.

PASmith
PASmith's picture

If it has the kata and techniques from Okinawa at its root or lineage then I tend to put things in a big karate pot. It can get complex but i think the link to the okinawan kata is an important part of the picture.

I can see a case where something like taekwondo (which I see as basically koreanised karate) has retained much closer ties to its Okinawan roots, as it still contains much of the DNA of karate technique, than something like Enshin or Sport karate which have dispensed with that DNA.

Marc
Marc's picture

Here are four quotes from Funakoshi's "The Essence of Karate" that capture what he thought karate is. Maybe we can infer from them what, from his point of view, is no longer karate (which is the topic of this thread):

Herein lies the essence of karate. More important than technique [jutsu (術) in Japanese] is the path [do (道)]. That is to say, progressing from the technical aspect of karate to the path that karate itself represents. That is why in Ryukyu, although the word karate-jutsu does not exist, the word karate-do is an established term.

If you don't develop the mindset of a true karateka you might not really get the essence of it, but if you work well on your techniques you would still be practicing karate. So maybe if you get sloppy and don't really care about a descent technical standard, then it might no longer be karate.

There is no first strike in karate - this is what I deem to be the essence of karate-do. In other words, respond to your opponent once he moves, without initiating the action. He who is able to read circumstances in his mind before they transpire, to see the playing out of opposing forces yet to begin, as if with eyes behind one's back, is capable of knowing the path to certain victory.

Karate is about not being the one who initiates a fight. So if you contribute to escalating a situation into a fight or even go and start fights, then it is no longer karate.

It is safe to say that karate begins and ends with kata.

This means that karate has kata at its core. So if kata would be ommitted, then it would no longer be karate.

While karate is not something that can be easily conveyed and is difficult to explain without presenting an actual demonstration, a characteristic that distinguishes it as karate is that it cannot be commercialized or adapted for competition. Herein lies the essence of karate-do, as it cannot be realized with protective equipment or through competitive matches.

This might come as a shock to many but Funakoshi clearly states that when karate is adapted for competition it no longer is karate.

Therefore the archetypical non-karateka would be a competition athlete who likes to start fights over why somebody was looking at them, and who has sloppy techniques because they didn't care about practicing kata.

Take care everybody,

Marc  

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Nice topic and something of a philosophical question!

Karate has been constantly changing and evolving. It’s never stayed the same. Therefore, any attempt to define it by one snapshot of history is sure to fail.

To me, anything that evolved from what was labelled “karate” is still karate. Any attempt to nail it down further than that is likely to be both inaccurate and potentially restrictive.

All the best,

Iain

Marc
Marc's picture

Iain Abernethy wrote:

Karate has been constantly changing and evolving. It’s never stayed the same. Therefore, any attempt to define it by one snapshot of history is sure to fail.

Yes, and as Funakoshi said in My Way of Life:

Times change, the world changes, and obviously the martial arts must change too.

Karate is a lot of different things to different people who practice karate.

We should not disregard what others do just because it does not fit our definition of karate. Instead we need to learn from them. Then we can chose whether we want to dismiss it because it has fundamental flaws, or opt to co-exists because it just isn't for us, or actually incorporate it into our training and thus expand our definition of karate.

Think of a technique like mawashi-geri. As it cannot be found in traditional katas we could dismiss it as "no longer being karate". But enough karateka liked it, and now it one of the most iconic karate techniques.

All the best,

Marc

reececottam12
reececottam12's picture

I would certainly agree that Karate and all of it’s components have a lot to offer, but my personal opinion is that we shouldn’t restrict training which helps us with our goal of self protection just because it isn’t considered “Karate” by the wider community; for example, just because I know how to do a hip throw for instance (which is well recorded in Kata and historical documents on Karate) doesn’t mean that’s any less valuable than something like Sticky Hands, which isn’t in Kata (and many would say isn’t Karate at all!) but is widespread in the Chinese Arts because it is an invaluable tool to learn all about proprioception.

The point is that if we are looking to practise Applied, practical Karate then I believe part of that means being open minded and always open to improvement, but not change for its own sake or for the sake of “tradition”

Just my two cents :)

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

reececottam12 wrote:
I would certainly agree that Karate and all of it’s components have a lot to offer, but my personal opinion is that we shouldn’t restrict training which helps us with our goal of self protection just because it isn’t considered “Karate” by the wider community;

Absolutely. As Marc mentions in his post, there was a time when mawashi-geri wasn’t “karate”. It was not listed as a kicking technique in Funakoshi’s first book, and it wasn’t in the first edition of Karate-Do Kyohan. It’s not until the 1950s that we see the kick in the revised edition. If something works and proves useful, then we should be adopting into practise; as was always done in the past.  It’s not just techniques either, the same applied for equipment and training methods.

reececottam12 wrote:
… something like Sticky Hands, which isn’t in Kata (and many would say isn’t Karate at all!) but is widespread in the Chinese Arts because it is an invaluable tool to learn all about proprioception.

Sticking hands is essentially limb-control using the concept of Muchimi. Some karate groups also practice kakie; which has a lot of commonality with the practise of sticking hands that we see in some Chinese systems. I’d therefore say that “sticking hands” is something in both kata and karate. However, we should still look at how other systems train these things and adopt those training methods into karate training if we believe them to be useful. As an example, plenty of karate I know have adopted a “karate-fied” version of Hubud into their karate limb control drills.

reececottam12 wrote:
The point is that if we are looking to practise Applied, practical Karate then I believe part of that means being open minded and always open to improvement, but not change for its own sake or for the sake of “tradition”

Absolutely. Indeed, seeking improvement and encouraging evolution was the original tradition.

All the best,

Iain

reececottam12 wrote:
I would certainly agree that Karate and all of it’s components have a lot to offer, but my personal opinion is that we shouldn’t restrict training which helps us with our goal of self protection just because it isn’t considered “Karate” by the wider community;

Absolutely. As Marc mentions in his post, there was a time when mawashi-geri wasn’t “karate”. It was not listed as a kicking technique in Funakoshi’s first book, and it wasn’t in the first edition of Karate-Do Kyohan. It’s not until the 1950s that we see the kick in the revised edition. If something works and proves useful, then we should be adopting into practise; as was always done in the past.  It’s not just techniques either, the same applied for equipment and training methods.

reececottam12 wrote:
… something like Sticky Hands, which isn’t in Kata (and many would say isn’t Karate at all!) but is widespread in the Chinese Arts because it is an invaluable tool to learn all about proprioception.

Sticking hands is essentially limb-control using the concept of Muchimi. Some karate groups also practice kakie; which has a lot of commonality with the practise of sticking hands that we see in some Chinese systems. I’d therefore say that “sticking hands” is something in both kata and karate. However, we should still look at how other systems train these things and adopt those training methods into karate training if we believe them to be useful. As an example, plenty of karate I know have adopted a “karate-fied” version of Hubud into their karate limb control drills.

reececottam12 wrote:
The point is that if we are looking to practise Applied, practical Karate then I believe part of that means being open minded and always open to improvement, but not change for its own sake or for the sake of “tradition”

Absolutely. Indeed, seeking improvement and encouraging evolution was the original tradition.

All the best,

Iain

Tau
Tau's picture

<Devil's advocate>

Iain, you've stated many times that you concede that kata aren't necessary for an effective martial art. If tomorrow you decided to strip away kata from your method and system would you still call what you do "Karate?" Granted there were indigenous Okinawan fighting methods present without kata but what was taken to Japan and was named Karate was characterised by Kata. Without Kata aren't you doing "Okinawan Jujitsu?"

</Devil's advocate>

reececottam12
reececottam12's picture

Iain Abernethy wrote:
Sticking hands is essentially limb-control using the concept of Muchimi. Some karate groups also practice kakie; which has a lot of commonality with the practise of sticking hands that we see in some Chinese systems. I’d therefore say that “sticking hands” is something in both kata and karate. However, we should still look at how other systems train these things and adopt those training methods into karate training if we believe them to be useful. As an example, plenty of karate I know have adopted a “karate-fied” version of Hubud into their karate limb control drills.

Definitely, on a side note I think sometimes the principles that the techniques within Kata portray are actually much deeper than they appear at face value, so from my perspective if one is using limb control to create an opening for a strike, there's not just the follow-up strike to consider but there's also potential to isolate the limb control and fine-tune it through the use of Sticking Hands, Kakie or any variant thereof so that we can apply our limb control better, which is something I've never really thought about before and is definitely food for further thought :)

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Tau wrote:
If tomorrow you decided to strip away kata from your method and system would you still call what you do "Karate?"

Yes. It would still have evolved from what was previously labelled “karate”, so it would still be karate to me. It would be the same combatively, but I would have lost a method of preservation, organisation and supplementary solo-training.

Tau wrote:
Without Kata aren't you doing "Okinawan Jujitsu?"

No. It’s still karate. The methods being practised would not have evolved from the methods of Japanese jujutsu, and hence the term “Jujitsu” would be misnomer. Just as it would be if I called it “Okinawan Boxing”, “Okinawan Kung Fu” or “Okinawan MMA”. The hands-on combative methodology would still be karate.

All the best,

Iain

TW Smith
TW Smith's picture

Fantastic conversation!

I can speak to Chinese Martial Arts primarily. As a general rule going back to the early 1800's, 3 primary Northern Styles, Hsing Yi, TaiJi and BaGau Zhang, were passed down to developing the person in character, discipline and health, and the martial.  Once these became broken, for an emphasis exclusively on health, military, sport or show) during the early 1900's, many recognized figures of these systems began retracting themselves from teaching, or they 'were removed' from being allowed to teach the old way.

This sentiment was also expressed by early Judo teachers, before it became known nearly exclusively as an Olympic sport. Which over the past year, I have learned much about.

If we did try to take a snapshot of what our respected predessors were trying to teach us, and do a sincere job in translating for a new time, new laws, new concerns, perhaps we can stay true to what a Traditional Martial Art can mean to us, today.

Personally, Once the Traditional Martial Art loses an emphasis of its trident, 1. Better Person 2. Better Health 3. Better Self Protection  then it is straying off into other arena's that do not really interest me.  The reason I became involved in martial arts was because massaging a new standard in each of these, are always something for me to be working toward.

As always, Thank you all for such excellent dialogue and allowing me the opportunity to participate!

Tim

deltabluesman
deltabluesman's picture

Everyone,

Thank you for this excellent discussion.  I've realized that there's a lot more to this question than meets the eye, and I'm grateful for the responses, as they've given me much to think about.    

TW Smith, thanks for contributing your perspective on the Chinese arts as well.  I'm a fan of your podcast and particularly enjoy the way you take listeners through the history of the martial arts.

If anyone has anything else to add, please feel free.  

--J

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

deltabluesman wrote:
Thank you for this excellent discussion.

Thanks for kicking it off! A very interesting and deep topic!

deltabluesman wrote:
TW Smith, thanks for contributing your perspective on the Chinese arts as well.  I'm a fan of your podcast and particularly enjoy the way you take listeners through the history of the martial arts.

Yep. What you said :-)

All the best,

Iain

AllyWhytock
AllyWhytock's picture

Hi,

With this in mind, I've always felt like karate had a major advantage of being able to evolve and absorb the best of other styles . . .  that the core aspects of karate were its mindset and its purpose, rather than an untouchable curriculum that had been passed down through the ages.

Great topic. I’d like to look at deviating from “tradition”. The contemporary Karate, Shotokan, that I was taught in the 80s, 90s and 00s was always non-changing or as Iain says “not so much Shu Ha Ri” but “Shu Shu Shu”. Any deviation from the tradition was viewed as disrespectful and as Patrick McCarthy Hanshi describes “deru kugi wa utareru” or “The nail that sticks out gets hammered down”. This is present in contemporary or “traditional” Karate because it was defined by Japanese culture – conformity, not causing disruption, ancestral worship and formalised respect. So how did this happen?

The one historical event that influenced the greatest change and the resultant globalisation of Karate was the absorption of the Ryu Kyu Kingdom within the greater Japanese Empire. Prior to this event Karate changed due to an assortment of normal human interchange, trade and migration. Karate’s evolution and gradual change mirrors that of other human endeavours – language, writing & art – yet contained and localised within South China, South East Asia and the Ryu Kyu Islands. Based on the Ryu Kyu Kingdom’s location there is no doubt that the indigenous culture appropriated what was seen as positive, beneficial and better. However, at the turn of the 20th Century the change accelerated and was re-invented to meet Japanese culture.

Originally, the pedagogy of Toudi Jutsu was originally 1-2-1 teaching i.e. one or few students to one teacher. Two-person practice was the process in which all elements concerning a particular encounter was studied. Toudi Jutsu was heavily influenced by South China Quan Fa E.g. White Crane and the fundamental pedagogy was 1-2-1 and deliberate practice.

At the turn of the 19th to 20th centuries, the Ryu Kyu Islands were governed by Japan. As the Empire grew to become a regional power with global intent, cultural diversity within the empire was not conducive to the survival of those cultures’ contrary to the Japanese culture. Assimilation and absorption of the Ryu Kyu culture and the removal or weakening of Chinese influences therein was necessary. Shrewd members of the former Ryu Kyu administration knew that survival of the Ryu Kyu culture within the greater Japanese empire required a balance between assimilation and polite resistance. A background <http://www.karate-cesena.it/karate-cesena/politica-di-assimilazione-ad-okinawa.html>.

Anko Itosu was an astute man who lived and breathed Toudi Jutsu. To preserve that aspect of Ryu Kyu culture but yet to be seen as cooperating with the assimilation I submit the notion that he was compelled to propose a modified form of Toudi Jutsu (or Karate) to be taught within the higher school system.  Knowing that the Japanese governor of the time was Narahara Shigeru (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narahara_Shigeru) and bearing in mind the governor’s martial prowess, Itosu wrote the following letter <https://iainabernethy.co.uk/article/10-precepts-anko-itosu> to the Japanese authorities proposing his modified version of Karate to “serve as an enormous asset to our military forces.” He changed his Toudi Jutsu.

It is no surprise then that Itosu’s students: Funakoshi, Mabuni & Motobu amongst others were progenitors of Toudi Jutsu or Chinese Hand or now Empty Hand on the Japanese mainland.

The term Toudi Jutsu itself was modified to be more suitable for the Japanese cultural understanding. A perspective upon this was recorded at the 1936 meeting: http://irkrs.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-1936-meeting-of-okinawan-karate.html in which Karate become “Empty Hand” and the unification or standardisation was discussed, to ease the transition to a Karate that was more suitable for teaching within the greater Japanese Empire. Uniforms, a militaristic approach to line drilling, rote learning, unquestioning discipline of superiors and the removal of any Chinese terminology e.g. Kata names.

What grew from the 1930s/40s was the contemporary Karate most of us were taught and being told that this was the “tradition”.  Hints of prior aspects still persisted – a pedagogy of two-person practice, throwing, grappling and realistic self-defence. All replaced with a simplistic approach suitable for teaching children and re-invention of violence to a duelling combative sport. Focus more on the Do and less Jutsu.  

Tegumi and Gyaku Waza were replaced by 1,3,5 step kumite. http://irkrs.blogspot.com/2018/02/tegumi.html Similarly, in the 1930s Yoshitake Funakoshi brought in more circular techniques – Mawashi Geri, ever wonder why it is not in the standard 26 Shotokan Kata? Henning Wittwer has translated a biography written by one of the Funakoshi’s students and within that text there are several occurrences of change and the reasons for change. http://amzn.eu/d/ah8xINv.

Karate Do Kyohan: Master Text for the Way of the Empty-Hand Gichin Funakoshi (Translated by Harumi Suzuki-Johnston) <http://amzn.eu/d/ajjcolP> has several Kata, yet not the full list of contemporary practiced Kata of the globally influential Shotokan organisations. There has been change. So even those organisations that teach “untouchable curriculum” are teaching/learning a Karate that which has previously changed. What about tradition here then? One just has to compare the Gichin Funakoshi of the 1920s and Yoshitake Funakoshi of the 1930s.

The one tradition of Karate is change. I personally believe that most groups that enforce a strict adherence to “tradition” and anything different is seen as disrespectful or derogatory are doing so to retain membership, influence and business.

I still see the same old remarks e.g. a young karate ka will share a kata on social media, practiced in a garden, wearing contemporary sports training clothing. Rather than comment on his kata the words “disrespectful” and “derogatory” appear because he is not wearing a Gi. The Gi is a 1920s Japanese “change” yet is this not unprofessional, ignorant and belittling towards a person who is obviously wanting to learn? 

I find that when asking non-Karate Ka what they think Karate is, the common words are unrealistic, fanciful, dogmatic or useless. Unfortunately, the popularisation of Karate has led to a dilution of the older practices.  When we look back to Toudi Jutsu and study Tegumi, grappling, locking & throwing we are attacked from both the traditionalists and the non-Karate MA practitioners that we are merely responding to MMA, getting in on the popular wave.

The trouble is that the dogmatic adherence to tradition has resulted in a huge population of Karate Ka completely unaware of history, past change and the true depth of Karate. The main driver is fear of being shunned from a perceived supportive community, that demands conformity.

So what do we do? We can only to strive to study, learn, practice and train what is our personal unique and individual Karate.  We must also teach the history, gathered from a broad source of experts, ultimately stating the Shu Ha Ri philosophy. We can take rational and logical views of the other elements of Karate and discuss with critics yet mindful to ignore those who have a more derogatory and straw man informal argument approach or Argumentum ad populum.

My own personal mindset is learned from Ant Middleton: “Don’t let anyone else define who you are”.

Thanks,

Ally

Marc
Marc's picture

Thanks Ally, what a great post. :)  

AllyWhytock
AllyWhytock's picture

Thank you Marc. 

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Outstanding post Ally! Thank you!

All the best,

Iain

AllyWhytock
AllyWhytock's picture

Thanks Iain.

Folks postings are really trigger a lot of thought.

All the best, Ally