Empty hand flows from weapons...

[Makalakumu]

I recently had some time to meet and talk karate with Sensei Peter Carbone, 9th dan in Okinawan Kobudo/Kempo. One of the things that he said that really intrigued me was that all "traditional karate" started with weapons. The empty hand techniques are supposed to flow from the weapon techniques. When I asked him why so many Okinawan derivitive systems reverse that, his response was something I will never forget...

"Why train your least effective weapons the most?"

This suddenly made alot of sense. I have trained in some traditional aikijutsu and fairly extensively in arnis de mano and that is how these system's start. The fundamentals of the weapons start first and the movement and footwork involved flows right into the empty hand.

With karate, this is still a total mystery to me and I'm just wondering what other people think about this...

[Empty Hands]

I don't know, I could see arguments for either way. For the empty hand side, you could argue that any house should be built from the foundation up. Learn your stances and footwork, body control, and then limb control before you go on to put extensions on those limbs.

[cstanley]

I think he is speculating.

[Makalakumu]

I don't know if that is all speculation. Carbone Sensei is soley responsible for bringing people like Oyata Sensei to the US. His weapons are considered by the Okinawan masters to be the best in the world. From the tiny little that I saw of what he was doing, I could see direct application in many of the kata that I practice.

Hiki-te takes on a whole new meaning when weapons are involved...

[Errant108]

I think he is speculating.

Who? Sensei Carbone? What makes you say that?

[Sukerkin]

I can tell you from my own experience that I have advanced the same theorem and gotten an affirmative response from my sensei (6th dan Karate, 5th dan MJER, sundry other lower dans).

The salient point to consider is that the empty-handed arts were developed for warriors who had lost their weapons or as an adjunct to their weapons (leaving aside largely mythological tales of Okinawan wonder-peasants taking down arrogant Samurai). Why learn an entirely new pattern of movements for such circumstances when you could more easily adapt motions used with weapons?

I've seen sensei use this similarity to teach swordwork to karateka's - "It's like {insert karate technique} but with {insert this difference because you have a sword in your hands}".

[Makalakumu]

The above is a good post.

Okinawan Bushi were not peasents fighting in rice paddies with Naihanchi kata. They were warriors in charge of protecting the king. What kind of weapons are men like these going to train the most?

The answer is simple.

The most effective weapons available.

Now, the hard part is trying to figure out how this progression flows. How does this curriculum work?

[Makalakumu]

Who? Sensei Carbone? What makes you say that?

A simple googling of his name would provide ample evidence for the skeptical mind. Actually visiting the man and seeing the 3,300 hundred square foot dojo being built in his back yard would be another bit.

To realize that masters of Okinawan Karate come to visit Carbone Sensei, in the middle winter, in Detroit(!), is another thing entirely.

[Rich Parsons]

I recently had some time to meet and talk karate with Sensei Peter Carbone, 9th dan in Okinawan Kobudo/Kempo. One of the things that he said that really intrigued me was that all "traditional karate" started with weapons. The empty hand techniques are supposed to flow from the weapon techniques. When I asked him why so many Okinawan derivitive systems reverse that, his response was something I will never forget...

"Why train your least effective weapons the most?"

This suddenly made alot of sense. I have trained in some traditional aikijutsu and fairly extensively in arnis de mano and that is how these system's start. The fundamentals of the weapons start first and the movement and footwork involved flows right into the empty hand.

With karate, this is still a total mystery to me and I'm just wondering what other people think about this...


Me and Peter do not agree on much.

He trained in Modern Arnis, which could be where he got the idea of weapons training for empty hands.

But then again it could be something else, such as the BS he preached about how his art was the oldest in the world and all other arts spawned from it. :rolleyes:

I know some who trained with him in Karate, for that I cannot truly speak, but my interactions with him for Modern Arnis with relationship to GM Remy Presas, he was rude/disrespectful and so were some of his senior students.

[exile]

Believe me, I don't have a horse in this race. But I find the following interesting:


During the 11th century, a number of Japanese warriors fleeing from the Taira-Minamoto wars made their way to Okinawa. Many of the Minamoto samurai took Okinawan wives and remained upon the island for the rest of their days. The bujitsu of the Minamoto samurai had a large influence on the fighting methods employed by the Okinawan nobles. One part of Minamoto bujitsu that had an influence on the development of karate was the idea that all motion is essentially the same. Whether striking, grappling or wielding a weapon, the Minamoto samurai taught that all combative methods relied on similar physical movements. An individual would be taught a particular physical movement and would then be shown how that movement could be adapted to achieve varying goals.

(Abernethy, Bunkai-Jutsu, pp.16–17). If Abernethy is right here—and I've noticed that his historical analyses are usually founded on well-established and reputable sources—the original point seems to get some support from what he has to say about the combat world-view of very early Okinawan MAists, particularly in view of the fact that for the samurai, the default combat situation would involve a weapon...

[MBuzzy]

This makes a lot of sense to me. In fact, talking to Senseir Carbone brought about a huge realization in my mind. I had always wondered why we drill so hard on wrist grabs and wrist joint locks. It really doesn't seem that common of a way to grab someone to me. Seems like you are putting yourself in a vulnerable position and if you are attacker with real malicious intent, you will either be using a weapon or grabbing from behind - some type of more immobilizing grab.

But when you look at historical principles, if someone wants to stop a Samurai from attacking with his most effective weapon - the sword, the best bet is to stop it from getting out of the scabbard. Now, I can see grabbing someone in the wrist as they are trying to draw a sword. The wrist grabs would be very effective if you need to release a grip on your arms so that you can draw. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but it makes sense to me!

Also, in a wartime situation, EVERYONE will have a weapon of some kind. Why teach someone to fight empty handed when weapons are abundant? Even in the military, we teach weapons skills first, then empty handed combative skills. Because no one is going to battle without their weapon. I can't think that militaries of hundreds of years ago were much different.

[MBuzzy]

One other point....Since I've started training in sword arts, I have seen a huge impact on my empty handed arts. Proof enough for me. They are most definately linked.

[Steel Tiger]

Believe me, I don't have a horse in this race. But I find the following interesting:


During the 11th century, a number of Japanese warriors fleeing from the Taira-Minamoto wars made their way to Okinawa. Many of the Minamoto samurai took Okinawan wives and remained upon the island for the rest of their days. The bujitsu of the Minamoto samurai had a large influence on the fighting methods employed by the Okinawan nobles. One part of Minamoto bujitsu that had an influence on the development of karate was the idea that all motion is essentially the same. Whether striking, grappling or wielding a weapon, the Minamoto samurai taught that all combative methods relied on similar physical movements. An individual would be taught a particular physical movement and would then be shown how that movement could be adapted to achieve varying goals.
(Abernethy, Bunkai-Jutsu, pp.16–17). If Abernethy is right here—and I've noticed that his historical analyses are usually founded on well-established and reputable sources—the original point seems to get some support from what he has to say about the combat world-view of very early Okinawan MAists, particularly in view of the fact that for the samurai, the default combat situation would involve a weapon...

This is a very interesting point. Mainly because the primary method of combat during the Heian period, for samurai, was with the bow. The fighting method called Yoroi-jutsu was apparently a grappling method but it seems to have been focused on getting into a position to stick the enemy with a tanto. It also appears to have been favoured over swordplay. The sword was coming into its own though, as attested by descriptions of Minamoto no Yoshitsune is action. It is obvious that, even though the bow was favoured, Heian samurai gave thought to all aspects of combat.

MBuzzy makes a good point about wrist grabs in particular and limb grabs in general. If they progressed from concepts coming from Yoroi-jutsu, then you can see how valuable they would have been in keeping an opponent from getting that tanto out.

Of course, it has to be remembered that Okinawan arts had already appeared before the Minamoto refugees arrived, so it might be a blending of concept and philosophy with extant cambat method. I don't know, I'm speculating based on what little I know of Okinawan and Japanese arts. My own art is so far removed from this conversation as to be useless as a guide.

[chinto]

kobujitsu and kobudo are older then Karate on Okinawa. so yes empty hand was based on some of the weapons techniques. that is not to say that empty hand techniques were not around before karate, some were. but that after the compleat weapons ban on Okinawa unarmed combat became more stressed as to have a weapon on you was a ticket to summarily be executed. as time passed the tools and implements were weaponized as far as the ability to use them effectively and efficiently against an armed man with say a katana or other weapon such as a Yari or what have you.

[TimoS]

Koryu jujutsu styles were heavily influenced by the weapons work and when I was still training in jujutsu, our instructor said that you cannot understand jujutsu without a sword. As for Ryukyu armed and unarmed methods, I'm not so sure about the 1:1 linkage, at least not anymore. In my previous karate style our instructor had developed his own kobudo by borrowing heavily from existing Ryukyu kobudo, japanese kobudo and also escrima. His idea was the same: what you do with weapons can be also done with empty hands and vice versa. Nowadays I'm not so sure anymore. Sure, some of the moves in karate kata can be transformed into weapons work (see e.g. here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_R1VKfYLDM He's doing Shorin(ji) ryu kata Ananku, the actual video title was someone's idea of a joke), but when you add a weapon such as bo into your empty hand kata, you won't be able to do the kata bunkai anymore, because e.g. the distance changes and the whole idea of kata (at least to me) is in the applications. If you only do the forms without any applications (such as many modern karate styles do), then it doesn't really matter if you can't do the kata applications anymore.

[Makalakumu]

Me and Peter do not agree on much.

He trained in Modern Arnis, which could be where he got the idea of weapons training for empty hands.

But then again it could be something else, such as the BS he preached about how his art was the oldest in the world and all other arts spawned from it. :rolleyes:

I know some who trained with him in Karate, for that I cannot truly speak, but my interactions with him for Modern Arnis with relationship to GM Remy Presas, he was rude/disrespectful and so were some of his senior students.

The way he explained it to me was that Okinawa was a cultural center, a great cultural melting pot, where all sorts of martial arts mixed and mashed to create Te. That certainly seems plausible given what I know of Okinawan history.

As far as his relationship with Remy Presas, Carbone Sensei mentioned that too, saying that they were pretty close friends. Interesting perspective, Rich.

[cstanley]

1. There is a long history of purely empty hand arts in China and on Okinawa that developed independently of any weapons.

2. The fact that kobudo and karate have some similar moves and dynamics does not mean that either developed from the other.

3. There are weapons ryu that do not use karate type stances and the dynamics of which are unique (Yamani ryu).

4. Some of you sound like you are trying to learn to do sword using karate stances and dynamics. That is incorrect and misleading. Kenjutsu and karate have almost NOTHING to do with each other. Find a real sword school.

5. Not all karateka were body guards for the Shogun. Clayton is wrong.

6. Carbone and others like him are looking for an edge, a marketing gimmick, some unique or new idea. It isn't as simple as any of them want to make it.

7. Just because someone makes good weapons and has a huge dojo doesn't mean they are correct in their speculations.

8. Anyone can get Okinawans and Japanese to come to their dojo. Contact them, pay their airfare, hotel, and a fee and feed them. Then you can have all the photo ops you like.

9. My suspicion here is that, in some cases, this whole theory is an effort by some to find an excuse for doing karate kata with weapons or vice versa and for simplifying things to suit them. Kobudo and karate are very different arts. Just because a typist and a concert pianist sit alike and use the same motions does not mean that Mary Lou Headlights out in the office will be playing Mozart concertos at home tonight.

[harlan]

An aside from a newbie: I think that if one's 'empty hand' is modeled, or forced to fit, one's kobudo...that it will suffer. And vice versa. I train Matayoshi kobudo, and Goju ryu at the same time (started with weapons training first...which is okay in our system)...and while there are many similarities...I'm of the mind that the statement 'the weapon is an extension of the hand' has been used to justify some bad mechanics.

[TimoS]

2. The fact that kobudo and karate have some similar moves and dynamics does not mean that either developed from the other.

True, because after all, there aren't that many ways to available to use your body, so there are bound to be similarities. The similarities, however, don't (necessarily) mean a connection


5. Not all karateka were body guards for the Shogun. Clayton is wrong.


I would imagine that (almost) none were bodyguards for shogun. King of Okinawa is a different story altogether ;) Not many were his bodyguards either, for that matter.

[cstanley]

I would imagine that (almost) none were bodyguards for shogun. King of Okinawa is a different story altogether ;) Not many were his bodyguards either, for that matter.

My mistake. Thanks for the correction.

[Sukerkin]

1. There is a long history of purely empty hand arts in China and on Okinawa that developed independently of any weapons.

I'm sure your phraseology isn't saying what you meant there. I would maintain that no (non-sport) empty-handed art developed in isolation as, to be effective, they have to take the prescence of weapons into account.


2. The fact that kobudo and karate have some similar moves and dynamics does not mean that either developed from the other.

True. I would still be very surprised if there was no linkage between the armed and unarmed styles tho'. It would be very difficult to investigate and prove one way or the other so we are left with our impressions and our opinions based upon what we observe (and some common sense).


3. There are weapons ryu that do not use karate type stances and the dynamics of which are unique (Yamani ryu).

Quite so. I don't know the ins-and-outs of Yamani ryu so I can't speak to that specifically. However, the postures in MJER iai have similarities to some karate stances but are not the same because, after all, we are dealing with three foot of steel in our hands.


4. Some of you sound like you are trying to learn to do sword using karate stances and dynamics. That is incorrect and misleading. Kenjutsu and karate have almost NOTHING to do with each other. Find a real sword school.


<snip harshly worded points>

I agree with what you say about how trying to 'force' a swordart into a karate mould would deform it unreasonably. However, perhaps it could've been phrased in a touch less inflammatory way? Disagreement doesn't have to be a conflict and a counter-point discourse can still be courteous.


9. My suspicion here is that, in some cases, this whole theory is an effort by some to find an excuse for doing karate kata with weapons or vice versa and for simplifying things to suit them. Kobudo and karate are very different arts. Just because a typist and a concert pianist sit alike and use the same motions does not mean that Mary Lou Headlights out in the office will be playing Mozart concertos at home tonight.

I concur with your last point there and it's a good way of illustrating that similarity does not necessarily connotate a causal relationship.

Are we not in danger of forgetting here that the 'martial artists' of the time when 'our' arts were developing were soldiers and thus did not study iaido, kenjutsu, karate etc as seperate, compartmentalised, entities? The list of arts that a samurai was expected to learn was quite extensive last time I looked and formed a suite of techniques. What was used where and when was situationally dependant, just like the arts studied by our WMA compatriots. That is one reason why I do not think it beyond the realms of possibility that motions, postures and actions were codified to an extent to be present in more than one of the arts.

[cstanley]

I'm sure your phraseology isn't saying what you meant there. I would maintain that no (non-sport) empty-handed art developed in isolation as, to be effective, they have to take the prescence of weapons into account.



True. I would still be very surprised if there was no linkage between the armed and unarmed styles tho'. It would be very difficult to investigate and prove one way or the other so we are left with our impressions and our opinions based upon what we observe (and some common sense).



Quite so. I don't know the ins-and-outs of Yamani ryu so I can't speak to that specifically. However, the postures in MJER iai have similarities to some karate stances but are not the same because, after all, we are dealing with three foot of steel in our hands.





I agree with what you say about how trying to 'force' a swordart into a karate mould would deform it unreasonably. However, perhaps it could've been phrased in a touch less inflammatory way? Disagreement doesn't have to be a conflict and a counter-point discourse can still be courteous.



I concur with your last point there and it's a good way of illustrating that similarity does not necessarily connotate a causal relationship.

Are we not in danger of forgetting here that the 'martial artists' of the time when 'our' arts were developing were soldiers and thus did not study iaido, kenjutsu, karate etc as seperate, compartmentalised, entities? The list of arts that a samurai was expected to learn was quite extensive last time I looked and formed a suite of techniques. What was used where and when was situationally dependant, just like the arts studied by our WMA compatriots. That is one reason why I do not think it beyond the realms of possibility that motions, postures and actions were codified to an extent to be present in more than one of the arts.


I meant exactly what I said exactly the way I worded it. Once again, karate developed as an empty hand art to be used against one or more opponents, armed or unarmed. I do not think one can posit a direct correlation. It is like the old myth about sai being developed to use against armed samurai.

You are thinking in terms of Japanese arts. The development of karate and weapons on Okinawa was less military, less systematic, and less integrated.

I did not see any harshly worded points. Are you that sensitive?

[MBuzzy]

1. There is a long history of purely empty hand arts in China and on Okinawa that developed independently of any weapons.

2. The fact that kobudo and karate have some similar moves and dynamics does not mean that either developed from the other.

3. There are weapons ryu that do not use karate type stances and the dynamics of which are unique (Yamani ryu).

5. Not all karateka were body guards for the Shogun. Clayton is wrong.

9. My suspicion here is that, in some cases, this whole theory is an effort by some to find an excuse for doing karate kata with weapons or vice versa and for simplifying things to suit them. Kobudo and karate are very different arts. Just because a typist and a concert pianist sit alike and use the same motions does not mean that Mary Lou Headlights out in the office will be playing Mozart concertos at home tonight.

So is your position that empty handed fighting and weapons fighting has no link and that they are completely separate things? I find a great deal of credibility in the idea that once a warrier has lost his weapon, he would need an empty handed style to compensate. I also don't see how they do not correlate. Weapons are simply an extension of the body. Obviously, they need different techniques, but most concepts that can be applied to a weapon can be applied to empty hands as well. Some with very little alteration.

The most impressive thing I found about stick fighting styles is that if you remove the sticks, the same movements work empty handed. Very little difference at all, you're simply using your arms and hands rather than that extension.

You do make some good points though, the fact that they are similar does not necessarily prove a cause and effect correlation. There are an infinate number of differences between system and stances, but I submit that if you look deep enough, you will find more similarity than you find difference, enen in this concept of "dynamics" that you refer to.


4. Some of you sound like you are trying to learn to do sword using karate stances and dynamics. That is incorrect and misleading. Kenjutsu and karate have almost NOTHING to do with each other. Find a real sword school.

Please explain this comment. I really don't see a point here, other than some possible contempt for people who train both styles. Again, is your point that the thing done in a weapon style have absolutely no correlation to empty handed fighting? I strongly disagree. At least for me, my study of sword has given me a much better idea of general body awareness. A smaller movement in the arms and hands translates to a much larger movement of a weapon and forces more control and precision. To me at least, this translates very well.

There will always be minor differences between styles, such as how we place our feet or the angles of a stance, but all styles still have the same basics. There is a Front Stance in Tang Soo Do, there is a Front stance in Haidong Gumdo. They are basically the same, but with minor alterations to compensate for the weapon or lack thereof. It is perfect feasable to train in both styles and not "cross polinate." Although I strongly disagree that they have "nothing" to do with each other.

I'm also curious where you got the idea that people are training at "fake sword schools?" Seems to me that gets back to the idea that one style may be inherently better than another....which we have beaten to death in plenty of threads.

Personal opinion - if you learn to use your hands or a weapon effectively, GREAT. There is no right or wrong, only opinion of techniques.


6. Carbone and others like him are looking for an edge, a marketing gimmick, some unique or new idea. It isn't as simple as any of them want to make it.

7. Just because someone makes good weapons and has a huge dojo doesn't mean they are correct in their speculations.

8. Anyone can get Okinawans and Japanese to come to their dojo. Contact them, pay their airfare, hotel, and a fee and feed them. Then you can have all the photo ops you like.

Very simple here - all martial arts schools are businesses. Even if you teach for free, your operation still runs like a business, because without customers, you have nothing to do except practice alone. I am curious how much you know about Sensei Carbone and those like him to make such blanket statements?

It is true that the size of your Dojo and the quality of your weapons does not make you right. But in many cases, your seniority in a style, your experience, and overall knowledge are what ALLOW you to have the big Dojo and to make the quality weapons. We are referring to someone with an incredible depth of knowledge and experience in many styles, agree with it or not, you can't argue with that many years of experience. As for brining Japanese and Okinawans here, it may not be as easy as you think...

[TimoS]

So is your position that empty handed fighting and weapons fighting has no link and that they are completely separate things? I find a great deal of credibility in the idea that once a warrier has lost his weapon, he would need an empty handed style to compensate.

Keep in mind that neither karate nor ryukyu kobudo were never battle-field arts. Some karateka were the king's bodyguards, but there weren't that many. In my (limited, granted) experience in both of those, the distance, timing and techniques are quite different in karate and ryukyu kobudo. Sure, you can do some of the unarmed stuff with a weapon and vice versa, but not everything. I wouldn't say that they are completely separate things, rather that they complement each other.


Very simple here - all martial arts schools are businesses. Even if you teach for free, your operation still runs like a business, because without customers, you have nothing to do except practice alone

I understand your point here, but I disagree with it. E.g. the club where I train at the moment: we "pass the collection plate" every now and then (about twice a year) to pay for our instructor's gasoline. Last time we paid about 50 euro each (we are a very small club, only about 6 actively training members). Other than that, the only fee is the national association fee (20 euro, which is roughly 30 USD). I wouldn't say that we're a business

[Sukerkin]

I meant exactly what I said exactly the way I worded it. Once again, karate developed as an empty hand art to be used against one or more opponents, armed or unarmed. I do not think one can posit a direct correlation. It is like the old myth about sai being developed to use against armed samurai.

You are thinking in terms of Japanese arts. The development of karate and weapons on Okinawa was less military, less systematic, and less integrated.

I did not see any harshly worded points. Are you that sensitive?

As to your last, I don't know about my being sensitive but I certainly would read your words as challenging - it's perhaps a cultural difference.

Given that one of my roles as a Mentor is to try and keep things civil I thought perhaps an opening to a less confrontational discourse was a good idea {bullet-point arguments are condusive to slanging matches in and of themselves :lol:}. If I 'took you wrong' then I apologise.

As to your first, I was obviously not clear in my own phrasing because what you said is what I meant :).

Anyhow, it's not that I don't care but I have nothing concrete to add weight to either side of this matter other than my point of view (which masses very little in the scheme of things). My opinion is different from your own in that I do see links between swordwork and empty hand arts, particularly karate but it's unprovable and not something I'd want to get in a fight about.

[cstanley]

So is your position that empty handed fighting and weapons fighting has no link and that they are completely separate things? I find a great deal of credibility in the idea that once a warrier has lost his weapon, he would need an empty handed style to compensate. I also don't see how they do not correlate. Weapons are simply an extension of the body. Obviously, they need different techniques, but most concepts that can be applied to a weapon can be applied to empty hands as well. Some with very little alteration.

The most impressive thing I found about stick fighting styles is that if you remove the sticks, the same movements work empty handed. Very little difference at all, you're simply using your arms and hands rather than that extension.

You do make some good points though, the fact that they are similar does not necessarily prove a cause and effect correlation. There are an infinate number of differences between system and stances, but I submit that if you look deep enough, you will find more similarity than you find difference, enen in this concept of "dynamics" that you refer to.



Please explain this comment. I really don't see a point here, other than some possible contempt for people who train both styles. Again, is your point that the thing done in a weapon style have absolutely no correlation to empty handed fighting? I strongly disagree. At least for me, my study of sword has given me a much better idea of general body awareness. A smaller movement in the arms and hands translates to a much larger movement of a weapon and forces more control and precision. To me at least, this translates very well.

There will always be minor differences between styles, such as how we place our feet or the angles of a stance, but all styles still have the same basics. There is a Front Stance in Tang Soo Do, there is a Front stance in Haidong Gumdo. They are basically the same, but with minor alterations to compensate for the weapon or lack thereof. It is perfect feasable to train in both styles and not "cross polinate." Although I strongly disagree that they have "nothing" to do with each other.

I'm also curious where you got the idea that people are training at "fake sword schools?" Seems to me that gets back to the idea that one style may be inherently better than another....which we have beaten to death in plenty of threads.

Personal opinion - if you learn to use your hands or a weapon effectively, GREAT. There is no right or wrong, only opinion of techniques.



Very simple here - all martial arts schools are businesses. Even if you teach for free, your operation still runs like a business, because without customers, you have nothing to do except practice alone. I am curious how much you know about Sensei Carbone and those like him to make such blanket statements?

It is true that the size of your Dojo and the quality of your weapons does not make you right. But in many cases, your seniority in a style, your experience, and overall knowledge are what ALLOW you to have the big Dojo and to make the quality weapons. We are referring to someone with an incredible depth of knowledge and experience in many styles, agree with it or not, you can't argue with that many years of experience. As for brining Japanese and Okinawans here, it may not be as easy as you think...

Not saying there is NO connection, only that it is not as direct and systematic as some seem to think.

RE: Sword Comments

Look, kenjutsu and iaido are very specific arts that date from at least as far back as the 11th century in Japan (iaido developed later, but has a very direct relation to the rest of kenjutsu). There is nothing remotely related to karate (except a few very broad things like emphasis on the hara, etc.) with regard to stance, movement, or technique. In a sword class, hours are spent on proper grip, proper technique in, for instance kiri oroshi, stepping in very particular ways that are totally unlike karate, and so on. I cannot imagine any art more unlike karate than kenjutsu.

In this country, there are far too many people doing what I call "playing with swords," that is, getting a katana (usually a wall hanger or some BB Magazine toy) and going to the karate dojo and doing "sword" using karate stances and footwork. That is not swordsmanship and it is not as simple as saying, "oh, well, the principles are the same." This is no argument about which kenjutsu ryu is "better." All legitimate sword ryu have strengths and all can teach you to use a sword properly. But, Johnny Hanshi in Hunky Dunky Karate waving a sword around in a back stance or doing karate kata while holding a sword CANNOT teach you kenjutsu...and he is fooling himself. There are just some lines that need to be drawn. It is an insult to real sword students for just any old karate guy to grab a sword, chop the air, and call it swordsmanship. There is way too much of that going on.

Legitimate sword training is often difficult to find. If you are serious about it, you will have to spend a good bit of money to get a good sword, proper clothing, and a few other items. You will likely have to search for a legitimate instructor, and you may well have to decide to travel some distance to train. Then, plan on 5 to 10 years minimum before you really begin to put it all together. Most people do not want to do all this. Unfortunately, too many just add sword to their other weapons while doing TKD or karate and insist that they are doing the same thing the folks in MJER, Itto ryu, Eishin ryu, or Katori Tenshin ryu are doing. Ain't so, sorry.

[TimoS]

My opinion is different from your own in that I do see links between swordwork and empty hand arts, particularly karate but it's unprovable and not something I'd want to get in a fight about.

I think that they only appear to be the same, but once you get down to applying the techniques, the differences appear. My previous karate instructor is also quite highly ranked in MJER iaido (7. dan renshi, if my memory serves me correctly) and he also said that e.g oitsuki (a forward lunging punch) is similar to tsuki in iaido. However, being that he probably isn't so well versed in karate kata applications, it is entirely possible that he has only looked "skin deep" and concluded that they are the same.

[Sukerkin]

It is certainly the case that intent can make a world of difference between physical actions that superficially look the same and I'm not sure that this discussion isn't veering a little by misunderstandings of what people are trying to say.

My view has been that the similarities in certain movements between armed and un-armed combat arts is not a coincidence. It may be biomechanical constraits caused it but in the end, if a people already have a body of martial knowledge to draw on I don't see why would they re-invent the wheel?

[cstanley]

It is certainly the case that intent can make a world of difference between physical actions that superficially look the same and I'm not sure that this discussion isn't veering a little by misunderstandings of what people are trying to say.

My view has been that the similarities in certain movements between armed and un-armed combat arts is not a coincidence. It may be biomechanical constraits caused it but in the end, if a people already have a body of martial knowledge to draw on I don't see why would they re-invent the wheel?

A swordsman without a sword does not automatically know how to deliver a gyakuzuki or a mae geri with proper focus, mechanics and power sufficient to knock an opponent down. A karateka who picks up a sword to face a skilled swordsman hasn't a prayer. I think the similarities are very surface and nothing more.

[exile]

A swordsman without a sword does not automatically know how to deliver a gyakuzuki or a mae geri with proper focus, mechanics and power sufficient to knock an opponent down. A karateka who picks up a sword to face a skilled swordsman hasn't a prayer. I think the similarities are very surface and nothing more.

OK, this brings in something I was wondering about, looking over Timos', Sukerin's and cstanley's posts... again, I've got no perspective which is strongly at stake in this conversation, I'm just interested in seeing where it can go. So it occurred to me that one way to approach the OP issue is stand it on its head: imagine a samurai of considerable experience who's had his sword taken away from him, and try to visualize how the body movements in his (now swordless) kenjutsu would/could be adapted, with the minimum modifications necessary, to effective unarmed self defense. What would the result look like, do you think? (bearing in mind that one might expect some systematic differences from any empty-handed MA that we know about which derived (as, e.g., karate appears to have done) from the fusing of a number of empty-hand fighting traditions and skill sets; take that as a given). Can you picture what the unarmed swordsman will be doing in the face of an unarmed attack, and how he will be applying the sword-based skills of his bujutsu to the unarmed context?

And then: if there's a good answer to that question—call it X—is there any currently practiced MA which seems to have a resemblance to X which is more than generic?

I'm just suggesting that this angle might be productive...

[cstanley]

OK, this brings in something I was wondering about, looking over Timos', Sukerin's and cstanley's posts... again, I've got no perspective which is strongly at stake in this conversation, I'm just interested in seeing where it can go. So it occurred to me that one way to approach the OP issue is stand it on its head: imagine a samurai of considerable experience who's had his sword taken away from him, and try to visualize how the body movements in his (now swordless) kenjutsu would/could be adapted, with the minimum modifications necessary, to effective unarmed self defense. What would the result look like, do you think? (bearing in mind that one might expect some systematic differences from any empty-handed MA that we know about which derived (as, e.g., karate appears to have done) from the fusing of a number of empty-hand fighting traditions and skill sets; take that as a given). Can you picture what the unarmed swordsman will be doing in the face of an unarmed attack, and how he will be applying the sword-based skills of his bujutsu to the unarmed context?

And then: if there's a good answer to that question—call it X—is there any currently practiced MA which seems to have a resemblance to X which is more than generic?

I'm just suggesting that this angle might be productive...

The result would look like Daito ryu aikijujutsu...which is exactly what that is.

[MBuzzy]

Keep in mind that neither karate nor ryukyu kobudo were never battle-field arts. Some karateka were the king's bodyguards, but there weren't that many. In my (limited, granted) experience in both of those, the distance, timing and techniques are quite different in karate and ryukyu kobudo. Sure, you can do some of the unarmed stuff with a weapon and vice versa, but not everything. I wouldn't say that they are completely separate things, rather that they complement each other.

Agreed - this is a good position, from a historical perspective. There may not have been a link in the development or history, but I am saying that they do complement each other to use your terms. I think largely we are discussing semantics. They are different styles with much different histories, but they definately relate to each other. The body mechanics do have a relationship. The timing, distance and techniques may be different, but not only can they be adapted, but they are simply weapons verisons of the same ideas. With a weapon or not, you must time a strike to hit the opponent, you might find openings, you must position your body properly, you must be the proper distance. Both styles address these things, just in different ways to account for the weapon or lack of.


I understand your point here, but I disagree with it. E.g. the club where I train at the moment: we "pass the collection plate" every now and then (about twice a year) to pay for our instructor's gasoline. Last time we paid about 50 euro each (we are a very small club, only about 6 actively training members). Other than that, the only fee is the national association fee (20 euro, which is roughly 30 USD). I wouldn't say that we're a business

Understood, most people do disagree with this position. It is a much more pragmatic approach and requires a more systems based view of a business to understand. It is true that there are clubs and free training areas....people who get together to train, clubs, etc. And you are correct, passing the hat for gasoline costs, etc does not constitute a business. But not all businesses turn a profit. What all businesses do have though, is a customer and a supplier. From this perspective, ALL martial arts schools are businesses.

You have a supplier (instructor) and a client (student). The students have a choice and can go elsewhere for their instruction. Without students, the instructor has no one to teach, without the teacher, the students cannot learn....from him. But they can go elsewhere. Therefore, it is not a completely sybiotic relationship, as with a public school. The instructor must keep the students happy or at least satisfied to keep the students.

But....that's pretty far off topic and probably more of another thread discussion.

[exile]

The result would look like Daito ryu aikijujutsu...which is exactly what that is.

I was wondering about that... I've heard this before.

So if that's the case, then the conclusion is that karate, for example, will look like kenjutsu to just the extent that the technique set of DRA was incorporated into the mix that yielded karate on Okinawa, no? If intermarriage and the transmission of budo skills (including DRA techniques) in the Okinawan colonial situation under the Satsumas did occur, then you would expect to see 'sporadic' resemblances between Okinawan karate movements and kenjutsu movements, and maybe a few wisps of parallelism between Shotokan and kenjutsu, without there being any real systemic parallelism there... I'm just thinking aloud here; does this make sense?

[TimoS]

The result would look like Daito ryu aikijujutsu...which is exactly what that is.
Here I disagree with you, not by much, but a bit. Daito ryu is just one thing it might look like. After all, at least according to my understanding, in the old times the samurai ryu weren't solely based on any one weapon, but they usually covered not only a whole range of weapons but also unarmed combat. So the samurai who lost his weapon would probably fight using the empty hand techniques of his particular ryu. My experience in authentic koryu traditions is just about non-existent, so I cannot say for sure how much these unarmed combat methods resemble the armed methods of the same ryu.

[MBuzzy]

Not saying there is NO connection, only that it is not as direct and systematic as some seem to think..

Same situation, I think that it is semantics. We're saying the same thing in different ways. A swordsman is not automatically a good fighter and a fighter is not automatically a good swordsman. But expose it to the opposite extreme condition. A swordsman is not a HELPLESS fighter, just as a fighter is not helpless with a weapon. An expert in empty hand styles has a much better shot with a sword against a weapons expert than does someone with no experience. He will still probably lose, but at least has a good basis. Just as a swordsman with no sword is not helpless by any means. In fact, I would say that a swordsman with no weapon has a very solid foundation for fighting and would fare well with minimal additional training. In fact, in my sword style, at the higher levels, there is an empty handed portion....only taught past Cho Dan though....and surprisingly, it is very similar to the sword style.

I think that Exile has it dead on....a swordsman knows the concepts behind empty handed fighting because of their use of the weapon. When you can get beyond a more narrow view of how a weapon is used, the weapon is simply an extension of your body and the same concepts apply.


Look, kenjutsu and iaido are very specific arts that date from at least as far back as the 11th century in Japan (iaido developed later, but has a very direct relation to the rest of kenjutsu). There is nothing remotely related to karate (except a few very broad things like emphasis on the hara, etc.) with regard to stance, movement, or technique. In a sword class, hours are spent on proper grip, proper technique in, for instance kiri oroshi, stepping in very particular ways that are totally unlike karate, and so on. I cannot imagine any art more unlike karate than kenjutsu.

Another excellent example of how they are historically unrelated, although I find it hard to believe that there was never trading of styles or ideas. Or that swordsmen never learned empty handed arts. I also find it impossible to say that the two are not remotely related. In fact, I find that if I look closely they are very much related....as are ALL styles.

I can just see a relationship, many others do not. Particularly because I have experienced it and noticed a difference and how the two styles complement each other nicely. The same concepts all apply, you just have to have the "rosetta stone" to translate them"


In this country, there are far too many people doing what I call "playing with swords," that is, getting a katana (usually a wall hanger or some BB Magazine toy) and going to the karate dojo and doing "sword" using karate stances and footwork. That is not swordsmanship and it is not as simple as saying, "oh, well, the principles are the same." This is no argument about which kenjutsu ryu is "better." All legitimate sword ryu have strengths and all can teach you to use a sword properly. But, Johnny Hanshi in Hunky Dunky Karate waving a sword around in a back stance or doing karate kata while holding a sword CANNOT teach you kenjutsu...and he is fooling himself. There are just some lines that need to be drawn. It is an insult to real sword students for just any old karate guy to grab a sword, chop the air, and call it swordsmanship. There is way too much of that going on.

Legitimate sword training is often difficult to find. If you are serious about it, you will have to spend a good bit of money to get a good sword, proper clothing, and a few other items. You will likely have to search for a legitimate instructor, and you may well have to decide to travel some distance to train. Then, plan on 5 to 10 years minimum before you really begin to put it all together. Most people do not want to do all this. Unfortunately, too many just add sword to their other weapons while doing TKD or karate and insist that they are doing the same thing the folks in MJER, Itto ryu, Eishin ryu, or Katori Tenshin ryu are doing. Ain't so, sorry.

I would agree that sword training should not be taken lightly and there are far too many people who pick up a sword swing it around thinking they know the weapon. There are some big differences....in my sword style, the stance is basically the same with one major alteration, the position of the feet and toes. They are generally pointed in to avoid the sword. But we still have a version of all the stances from my empty hand style. The footwork is much different too....but the base concepts are there.

I specifically chose to study a specific style of sword, because my empty handed art is weaponless and it is much more deep than I ever imagined. I am also very luckily to be living within close proximity to an EXCELLENT teacher with links around the world in the Haidong Gumdo world.

You are completely right about costs, time, and the more aesthetic and attitude differences....but I will still hold that the fundamentals share many basic similarities.

And back to the OP Topic, along those lines, I would say that I find it hard to believe that throughout history they stayed completely separate. Whether one flowed from the other or not....who knows, although I could construct an argument either way.

[TimoS]

I was wondering about that... I've heard this before.

So if that's the case, then the conclusion is that karate, for example, will look like kenjutsu to just the extent that the technique set of DRA was incorporated into the mix that yielded karate on Okinawa, no? If intermarriage and the transmission of budo skills (including DRA techniques) in the Okinawan colonial situation under the Satsumas did occur, then you would expect to see 'sporadic' resemblances between Okinawan karate movements and kenjutsu movements, and maybe a few wisps of parallelism between Shotokan and kenjutsu, without there being any real systemic parallelism there... I'm just thinking aloud here; does this make sense?

I don't think Daito ryu has had any influence on okinawan fighting methods. IF (and that really is quite a big if) there was any kenjutsu influence on some early karate, then I would look more in the direction of the Satsuma clan tradition, which was Jigen ryu. There have been some speculation that some karate great, I think it was Bushi Matsumura, was also a master of Jigen ryu, but I don't think that has been confirmed by any actual research.

[cstanley]

Here I disagree with you, not by much, but a bit. Daito ryu is just one thing it might look like. After all, at least according to my understanding, in the old times the samurai ryu weren't solely based on any one weapon, but they usually covered not only a whole range of weapons but also unarmed combat. So the samurai who lost his weapon would probably fight using the empty hand techniques of his particular ryu. My experience in authentic koryu traditions is just about non-existent, so I cannot say for sure how much these unarmed combat methods resemble the armed methods of the same ryu.

I did not mean that all samurai would be students of Daito ryu, only that they would practice something that looked a lot like it. The Takeda clan and the Daito ryu were one of the major ryu, however, dating back to the Minamoto.

[TimoS]

Another excellent example of how they are historically unrelated, although I find it hard to believe that there was never trading of styles or ideas. Or that swordsmen never learned empty handed arts.

I wouldn't say that kenjutsu and iaijutsu are historically unrelated. In fact, I think they are more or less the same thing. It is a cliché, but there's this saying that iaido (or iaijutsu, whatever term you wish to use) only exists in the scabbard. Once you take the sword out, it is kenjutsu.

[TimoS]

I did not mean that all samurai would be students of Daito ryu, only that they would practice something that looked a lot like it. The Takeda clan and the Daito ryu were one of the major ryu, however, dating back to the Minamoto.

Ok, I understand. By the way, you do know that the Daito ryu history is quite heavily disputed and if I remember correctly, it has never actually been a battlefield art. But that's getting quite off-topic

[cstanley]

Same situation, I think that it is semantics. We're saying the same thing in different ways. A swordsman is not automatically a good fighter and a fighter is not automatically a good swordsman. But expose it to the opposite extreme condition. A swordsman is not a HELPLESS fighter, just as a fighter is not helpless with a weapon. An expert in empty hand styles has a much better shot with a sword against a weapons expert than does someone with no experience. He will still probably lose, but at least has a good basis. Just as a swordsman with no sword is not helpless by any means. In fact, I would say that a swordsman with no weapon has a very solid foundation for fighting and would fare well with minimal additional training. In fact, in my sword style, at the higher levels, there is an empty handed portion....only taught past Cho Dan though....and surprisingly, it is very similar to the sword style.

I think that Exile has it dead on....a swordsman knows the concepts behind empty handed fighting because of their use of the weapon. When you can get beyond a more narrow view of how a weapon is used, the weapon is simply an extension of your body and the same concepts apply.



Another excellent example of how they are historically unrelated, although I find it hard to believe that there was never trading of styles or ideas. Or that swordsmen never learned empty handed arts. I also find it impossible to say that the two are not remotely related. In fact, I find that if I look closely they are very much related....as are ALL styles.

I can just see a relationship, many others do not. Particularly because I have experienced it and noticed a difference and how the two styles complement each other nicely. The same concepts all apply, you just have to have the "rosetta stone" to translate them"



I would agree that sword training should not be taken lightly and there are far too many people who pick up a sword swing it around thinking they know the weapon. There are some big differences....in my sword style, the stance is basically the same with one major alteration, the position of the feet and toes. They are generally pointed in to avoid the sword. But we still have a version of all the stances from my empty hand style. The footwork is much different too....but the base concepts are there.

I specifically chose to study a specific style of sword, because my empty handed art is weaponless and it is much more deep than I ever imagined. I am also very luckily to be living within close proximity to an EXCELLENT teacher with links around the world in the Haidong Gumdo world.

You are completely right about costs, time, and the more aesthetic and attitude differences....but I will still hold that the fundamentals share many basic similarities.

And back to the OP Topic, along those lines, I would say that I find it hard to believe that throughout history they stayed completely separate. Whether one flowed from the other or not....who knows, although I could construct an argument either way.

You practice Korean swordsmanship. I am talking about Japanese swordsmanship in relation to karate, which seemed to be the focus of the discussion, or at least one question raised by it. I doubt if there was EVER any systematic exchange between karateka and swordsmen during the samurai era, since it ended in 1868, long before karate made it to the Japanese mainland or was ever systematized.

Saying that "the weapon is an extension of your body" isn't really saying anything. That is a nice way to tell students to relax and not be afraid of the weapon. I say it a lot, too, in class. The fact that a swordsman is not helpless without a sword does not mean he can automatically kick and punch with power and focus like a karateka. Swordsmen fought empty handed more like aikijujutsu. See above.

You seem to want to believe that, if you can do one weapon, you can do them all. Well, maybe after few years of training with each specific weapon, but one weapon does not easily transfer to the use of another. Being able top use sai, for instance, would not help you at all in learning kenjutsu. Derek Jeter, perhaps the greatest shortstop in baseball today, cannot do what Bret Favre did, nor can Favre play ss. Mozart could not play BB King; Elvis ain't Pavarotti. Get my drift?

[exile]

I don't think Daito ryu has had any influence on okinawan fighting methods. IF (and that really is quite a big if) there was any kenjutsu influence on some early karate, then I would look more in the direction of the Satsuma clan tradition, which was Jigen ryu. There have been some speculation that some karate great, I think it was Bushi Matsumura, was also a master of Jigen ryu, but I don't think that has been confirmed by any actual research.


I did not mean that all samurai would be students of Daito ryu, only that they would practice something that looked a lot like it. The Takeda clan and the Daito ryu were one of the major ryu, however, dating back to the Minamoto.

Right, these are both in line with the general picture I was suggesting—it wouldn't have to be Daito-ryu Aiki specifically; the crucial point is, it would be some (ryu-specific?) empty-hand adaptation of the kenjutsu techs (of that ryu) which—this is the important part, I think—will look quite different, apart from isolated parallels, from modern karate in any of its local flowerings. And yes, it is a big if, although I think Abernethy makes a reasonable case for it.

[cstanley]

Ok, I understand. By the way, you do know that the Daito ryu history is quite heavily disputed and if I remember correctly, it has never actually been a battlefield art. But that's getting quite off-topic

I have read some of that stuff. However, the Takeda family descended from the Minamoto going back to 1163 AD. The line can be traced through Takeda Shingen, Takeda Kunitsugu, all the way to Takeda Sogaku (35th headmaster of the Daito ryu). He had menkyo in Ono-ha Itto ryu, Shinkage ryu, and Hozoin ryu. Daito ryu, itself, was founded in the Heian period by Saburo Minamoto Yoshimitsu and passed to the Takeda. It is probably a safe bet that the Daito ryu syllabus includes many techniques employed by swordsmen.

[TimoS]

And yes, it is a big if, although I think Abernethy makes a reasonable case for it.

Couple of things that were pointed out to me by friend about Abernathy: first of all, he is not researcher by occupation and second, he doesn't speak japanese. The latter point is actually quite important, although at first it may seem trivial. Because he doesn't speak japanese, he cannot have researched his claims in Japan and therefore he has had to rely on other people's research, which may or may not have been done in Japan and might be quite faulty from the start.

[MBuzzy]

You practice Korean swordsmanship. I am talking about Japanese swordsmanship in relation to karate, which seemed to be the focus of the discussion, or at least one question raised by it. I doubt if there was EVER any systematic exchange between karateka and swordsmen during the samurai era, since it ended in 1868, long before karate made it to the Japanese mainland or was ever systematized.

Saying that "the weapon is an extension of your body" isn't really saying anything. That is a nice way to tell students to relax and not be afraid of the weapon. I say it a lot, too, in class. The fact that a swordsman is not helpless without a sword does not mean he can automatically kick and punch with power and focus like a karateka. Swordsmen fought empty handed more like aikijujutsu. See above.

True, I practice Korean, but again, that is a historic and semantic difference....that doesn't damper the relation to empty hands. I can't argue with you historically - because you're completely right. I'm simply saying that there is a strong correlation between the concepts underlying both.


You seem to want to believe that, if you can do one weapon, you can do them all. Well, maybe after few years of training with each specific weapon, but one weapon does not easily transfer to the use of another. Being able top use sai, for instance, would not help you at all in learning kenjutsu. Derek Jeter, perhaps the greatest shortstop in baseball today, cannot do what Bret Favre did, nor can Favre play ss. Mozart could not play BB King; Elvis ain't Pavarotti. Get my drift?

Not even close, quite the opposite in fact. Although my comments may have come off that way, I believe that anyone training in a weapons style should receive specific training on that weapon. No one can just pick up a weapon and use it....every weapon is different and requires different techniques, you are completely right. The concepts of one do not translate directly to another. I think we may be just speaking from different perspectives.

I'm thinking a bit above the tactical level. I do not believe that anyone with some training can simply pick up a weapon and go. What I do believe is that with the proper training, the very basic concepts do translate. Not necessarily the wielding of the weapon, but the movements of the body, the way that the weapon interacts with other people, transfers of energy....more abstract concepts like that. Basic body mechanics. A good way to put my position is that someone who walks into a sword school with NO training AT ALL starts from square 0. Someone who walks into the same sword school with extensive empty hand training starts from square 2. They already know how to move and how to carry themselves....they will have to adapt it of course, but the very fundamentals are there. They must then learn how to do it with a weapon, which is actually sometimes more difficult than with a fresh student. In the same way that a beginner who walks into a Karate school starts at the beginning. A swordsman that walks in is already a step or two ahead. Not far....but it translates. Just like I know that if I ever cross train styles, I will have to learn a whole new style....new ways to punch, kick, stand, etc.....but I'm going to pick it up a lot faster than a green student and already have a solid basis to build on.

[exile]

Couple of things that were pointed out to me by friend about Abernathy: first of all, he is not researcher by occupation and second, he doesn't speak japanese. The latter point is actually quite important, although at first it may seem trivial. Because he doesn't speak japanese, he cannot have researched his claims in Japan and therefore he has had to rely on other people's research, which may or may not have been done in Japan and might be quite faulty from the start.

Yes. I have actually intended for a while to contact him and ask him what his sources were for his remarks about the Satsuma vis-à-vis the Okinawan nobility. Will post whatever I find out.

[TimoS]

Will post whatever I find out.

Excellent. I know people who will be very interested in his reply :)

[Makalakumu]

My initial post was an invitation to explore the links between kobudo and karate. Kenjutsu/aikijutsu/karate links are entirely interesting and worthy of discussion, but what I'm really interested is pinpointing any connections between Okinawan weapon arts and Okinawan empty hand arts.

From what I have seen, alot of the basic principles seem to be familiar. Especially when translating kata bunkai. I would say that it is a mistake to say that you can put weapons into empty hand kata. I would also say that it is a mistake to say that their are no connections between the principles located in weapon and empty hand katas.

I guess one possible avenue this discussion could take would be to a weapon and empty hand kata and look at them side by side.

[Makalakumu]

I guess one possible avenue this discussion could take would be to a weapon and empty hand kata and look at them side by side.

Kobu Nunchaku (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APTur6EEqaY&mode=related&search=)

Pinan Yondan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afco3r3h1tk)

[Flying Crane]

I certainly do not have a dog in this race, but I thought I'd add a little more perspective because it may add something to the picture. Or it may just cloud it further or may even be pointless. Nevertheless, I'll jump in with my thoughts.

I do not have any experience with Okinawan nor Japanese karate or kobudo arts. However, I do have experience with Chinese empty handed arts, and Chinese weaponry. While these can be quite different from the arts in Okinawa, the Okinawan arts were certainly influenced by Chinese arts such as Fukien White Crane. I haven't studied Fukien White Crane, nor any other art that had influenced the Okinawan methods (at least so far as I am aware), so I can't comment specifically, but I thought I'd comment in a more general sense, regarding my observations in studying other Chinese methods.

In the Chinese arts, the spirit of the method is seen most clearly in the empty hand forms and methods. This is where White Crane looks like White Crane, Tiger looks like Tiger, Preying Mantis looks like Preying Mantis, etc. The specific methodology that the art relies upon as a strategy in fighting is strongly built into the techniques and forms thru which the method is taught and practiced. And this is where it is obvious and most easily seen.

Weapons seem to be a bit different. I suspect there has been a lot of borrowing and adopting of weapons technologies from one style to another. And it seems to show up in the sense that you don't see the characteristic signature of the system as clearly in the weapons forms. In short, the same broadsword form may be found in the curriculum of several, or even many, different systems. Or, if it isn't the same form, you will see very similar techniques and methods found within their own broadsword form. Someone who learns broadsword in the context of a Shaolin Long Fist school, could easily learn a broadsword form that is practiced at a Choy Lay Fut school, and incorporate that form into his own curriculum. He would not need to learn the entire Choy Lay Fut system, or even much of its basics, in order to learn their broadsword form. I believe the weapons methods are really that similar, for the most part.

Now, some principles do cross over from the empty hand to the weapons methods. The Chinese arts can have very specific ways of generating power and moving in general, and this will usually be consistent in the weapons forms as well.

But I do not believe there is much of a direct translation from empty hand to weapons technique. Sure, you could use your imagination and kind of get some things to work, but I really think the techniques are too specific and refined to make this work on more than a rudimentary level. If I developed my skill with a spear, I can't take much from my use of that weapon and turn it into an empty hand method. Chinese spear does not really teach me to punch or block effectively without the weapon.

The broadsword that I train as part of my Tibetan White Crane has some very obvious connections to the empty hand in the principles of how we move. The system relies on a full-body pivot to develop tremendous whipping power, and our broadsword utilizes that same pivot and whipping power. But again, training with the weapon doesn't really teach me how to specifically fight empty handed. And without training with the weapon first, I would have a hard time being very effective with it, had I only engaged in empty hand training.

Personally, I think empty hand and weapons training sort of developed together. People realized the usefulness of being able to fight either with or without a weapon, should the need arise. So methods were developed. Obviously some elements of one would creep into the other and have an affect on how it was developed. But I think trying to make more of a connection than that may be pushing the idea a bit. At least from what I have seen in the Chinese arts.

[TimoS]

I guess one possible avenue this discussion could take would be to a weapon and empty hand kata and look at them side by side.

Okay. Let's do so. Here's a link to an oar (eiku/eku) kata by Masahiro Nakamato sensei http://www.wonder-okinawa.jp/023/eng/013/004/b_003e.wvx

Here's a link to Zenpo Shimabukuro o-sensei doing Kushanku http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56NlyLiquAs

[Rich Parsons]

The way he explained it to me was that Okinawa was a cultural center, a great cultural melting pot, where all sorts of martial arts mixed and mashed to create Te. That certainly seems plausible given what I know of Okinawan history.

As far as his relationship with Remy Presas, Carbone Sensei mentioned that too, saying that they were pretty close friends. Interesting perspective, Rich.


Maybe he has grown in his own life as well as in his martial arts. Like I said I do notlike him but it personal with me. And very off topic to this thread.

As to close friends, they may have been. Remy was friends with lots of people including thsoe who were buying the plane tickets and giving him money. (* I do not mean to speak ill of those who have past on and it is not meant as so. Only that Remy was a business man. *) I may not have been have been good friends with Remy or I may have. I just know what I shared with him and what he shared with me. And it was more than just training time.

Thankks

[TimoS]

the Okinawan arts were certainly influenced by Chinese arts such as Fukien White Crane

Ok, sorry for nit-picking and taking this conversation once again off-topic, but this is something that has been discussed a lot. While it is true that okinawan martial arts, especially toudi, was influenced by chinese fighting arts, only the "newer arrivals" that evolved into e.g. Goju ryu and Uechi ryu can to some extent trace their arts roots back to China and White Crane is probably one of those that influenced those styles. As for the older methods that evolved into Shorin ryu schools, sure, there must've been some influence at some point in their history, but what styles influenced them, when did it happen, who taugh who and how much they really influenced is really something that is lost in history. How much of the stuff is from China and how much is their indegenous fighting arts? Did the ancient okinawans take from chinese boxing more than the concept of long solo forms? Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that Shorin ryu was developed without chinese influence, what I'm saying that we don't know the specifics of the influence.

[Flying Crane]

Ok, sorry for nit-picking and taking this conversation once again off-topic, but this is something that has been discussed a lot. While it is true that okinawan martial arts, especially toudi, was influenced by chinese fighting arts, only the "newer arrivals" that evolved into e.g. Goju ryu and Uechi ryu can to some extent trace their arts roots back to China and White Crane is probably one of those that influenced those styles. As for the older methods that evolved into Shorin ryu schools, sure, there must've been some influence at some point in their history, but what styles influenced them, when did it happen, who taugh who and how much they really influenced is really something that is lost in history. How much of the stuff is from China and how much is their indegenous fighting arts? Did the ancient okinawans take from chinese boxing more than the concept of long solo forms? Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that Shorin ryu was developed without chinese influence, what I'm saying that we don't know the specifics of the influence.


I agree, these are legitimate questions, that may never be answered.

I think it's safe to say that throughout history, people have borrowed and traded with each other, and this includes methods of fighting. These influences have probably always existed to some degree or other among cultures that have come into contact with each other, and I am sure it was a two-way street as well. But often these specifics will never now be known, because there is no written record, and memory has been lost.

[cstanley]

Ok, sorry for nit-picking and taking this conversation once again off-topic, but this is something that has been discussed a lot. While it is true that okinawan martial arts, especially toudi, was influenced by chinese fighting arts, only the "newer arrivals" that evolved into e.g. Goju ryu and Uechi ryu can to some extent trace their arts roots back to China and White Crane is probably one of those that influenced those styles. As for the older methods that evolved into Shorin ryu schools, sure, there must've been some influence at some point in their history, but what styles influenced them, when did it happen, who taugh who and how much they really influenced is really something that is lost in history. How much of the stuff is from China and how much is their indegenous fighting arts? Did the ancient okinawans take from chinese boxing more than the concept of long solo forms? Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that Shorin ryu was developed without chinese influence, what I'm saying that we don't know the specifics of the influence.

TimoS is correct. All the Abernathy's, McCarthy's, Clayton's, etc. are doing one heck of a lot of speculation and asking people to take it as gospel.

I find it interesting that most of the people in this discussion do not train in karate. I don't go onto TKD or Arnis threads and try to talk knowledgeably. I guess that is the custom on this forum.

I think Carbone is reaching. When someone says, "Okinawa was a melting pot and a big mish mash of martial arts" they are trying to set it up to say "anything goes" then call what they are doing legitimate traditional karate. I get tired of that. They are wrong and they simply cloud things for beginners and others who do not know better.

I have watched Abernathy's stuff. It is ok, but it is nothing new. Students of Okinawan karate have been doing that kind of stuff for years. Same with McCarthy. I guess they are selling basic bunkai to people who have never been exposed to it.

[Flying Crane]

I find it interesting that most of the people in this discussion do not train in karate. I don't go onto TKD or Arnis threads and try to talk knowledgeably. I guess that is the custom on this forum.


They have something of value to offer the discussion. I think those who do not train in karate have been up front about this, and at least in my case I attempted to explain why my thoughts may have value for the discussion. If you feel they don't, that is your judgement to make for yourself.

[Makalakumu]

Okay. Let's do so. Here's a link to an oar (eiku/eku) kata by Masahiro Nakamato sensei http://www.wonder-okinawa.jp/023/eng/013/004/b_003e.wvx

Here's a link to Zenpo Shimabukuro o-sensei doing Kushanku http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56NlyLiquAs

Basic principles, footwork, attacks and counter sequences are very similar. Check out this form.

Unig Ziow (http://www.martialtalk.com/videos/jk_unigzyow.avi).

This is me performing a form from Arnis De Mano. If you take the stick out of my hands, this doesn't directly translate into an empty hand form. Many of the basic techniques are going to be different. However, the basic principles with footwork, block/check/first strike, follow up/set up, and side switching are going to be used in both.

So, in essence the weaponwork does flow right into the empty hand.

What I would like to see side by side are two kata from the same karate/kobudo system and see if there are any direct technical linkages.

[Makalakumu]

I have watched Abernathy's stuff. It is ok, but it is nothing new. Students of Okinawan karate have been doing that kind of stuff for years. Same with McCarthy. I guess they are selling basic bunkai to people who have never been exposed to it.

If they have been doing it for so long, then why aren't the Okinawan karateka writing the books on basic bunkai for the unenlightened? Seriously, business is business and if you have information to sell that people want, then why wouldn't you go out and make a buck?

[cstanley]

If they have been doing it for so long, then why aren't the Okinawan karateka writing the books on basic bunkai for the unenlightened? Seriously, business is business and if you have information to sell that people want, then why wouldn't you go out and make a buck?

Probably because they understand that you can't learn bunkai from books and tapes and they understand that there is some dignity and uniqueness to their arts that is above just tossing it out there for any wannabee to play with. Ya' reckon?

[exile]

TimoS is correct. All the Abernathy's, McCarthy's, Clayton's, etc. are doing one heck of a lot of speculation and asking people to take it as gospel.

Well, let's see. I've written IA and asked him about his sources. It may well be that he has some good reason for assertions he makes here. I've notice that in a lot of his writing he's careful to qualify his statements when matters are uncertain or the facts are incomplete. He could be speculating; but he might also be relying on the work of someone like Harry Cook, which would be a different thing entirely. I think it would wise to wait until there's some data on the point—which I hope will be forthcoming before too long—before deciding that IA's point of view can't possibly have any basis.


Probably because they understand that you can't learn bunkai from books and tapes and they understand that there is some dignity and uniqueness to their arts that is above just tossing it out there for any wannabee to play with. Ya' reckon?

What I reckon is that while you can't learn everything about bunkai from books and tapes, you can certainly learn a different way of thinking about them, by seeing 'worked examples' and getting some idea of the kind of logic that people are applying in coming up with interpretations of bunkai that are so different from the standard Itosu-packaging which has diffused into the Japanese and Korean developments of karate. It's like saying, you can't learn calculus from a book. But then why does virtually everyone who teaches calculus have a favored textbook, which invariable contains, in each chapter, both a general discussion of methods and a series of carefully worked out examples which give you illustrations of how you need to think about the problems presented, to render them solvable? So far as I can see, that's exactly what people like Abernethy, Clark, Burgar and the other people who work in this relatively new tradition do—they present what is, for many people in the MAs, a novel way of viewing the familiar but often badly understood phenomenon of forms, via a series of concrete example of how those forms encode practical information about combat strategy and tactics, in a way that many students of the MAs have not been exposed to. Exactly what is wrong with that?


I find it interesting that most of the people in this discussion do not train in karate. I don't go onto TKD or Arnis threads and try to talk knowledgeably. I guess that is the custom on this forum.


Well, I would welcome nothing more than some participation, in many of our TKD and KMA discussions, of a few karateka with background in Okinwan systems, as an antidote to the often toxic insularity and myth-recycling that goes on there. We have more than a few people in the KMAs—UpN will bear me out on this, I'm quite sure!—who simply cannot believe that TKD and TSD didn't spring out of the soil of the Korean peninsula fully formed and independent of all other influences, in spite of the known history of the modern KMAs. I certainly wouldn't dream of trying to discourage the participation of an OMA or FMA practitioner who might well be able to shed some light on the issues under discussion. If what someone is saying is wrong, fine, invoke the relevant facts to show why they're wrong. But I think it's a serious error to assume in advance that people who have experience primarily in one art have nothing to say of use in understanding either the technical or historical aspects of other arts.

Probably the single best piece of writing on the subject of Shakespeare's Hamlet, certainly one of the very best, came from the pen of someone who wasn't even a Shakepeare scholar. H.D.F. Kitto was an Oxford classical scholar who wrote a brilliant set of essays on Greek tragedy; but the final essay in his book wasn't about Sophocles or Aeschylus, but about Hamlet, and it was a real watershed. He was able to make a great deal of sense out of aspects of the play that had been regarded as cruxes—things that supposedly made no sense—by proposing a novel view of the play as an expression, in Elizabethan England, of certain themes that were at the heart of ancient Greek literature. From everything I heard about it, his essay had a great impact on Shakespeare scholarship. Not once, if I recall, did anyone respond to Kitto's novel interpretation by saying, 'Pay no attention to this chap, he's a classicist.'

[cstanley]

Well, let's see. I've written IA and asked him about his sources. It may well be that he has some good reason for assertions he makes here. I've notice that in a lot of his writing he's careful to qualify his statements when matters are uncertain or the facts are incomplete. He could be speculating; but he might also be relying on the work of someone like Harry Cook, which would be a different thing entirely. I think it would wise to wait until there's some data on the point—which I hope will be forthcoming before too long—before deciding that IA's point of view can't possibly have any basis.



What I reckon is that while you can't learn everything about bunkai from books and tapes, you can certainly learn a different way of thinking about them, by seeing 'worked examples' and getting some idea of the kind of logic that people are applying in coming up with interpretations of bunkai that are so different from the standard Itosu-packaging which has diffused into the Japanese and Korean developments of karate. It's like saying, you can't learn calculus from a book. But then why does virtually everyone who teaches calculus have a favored textbook, which invariable contains, in each chapter, both a general discussion of methods and a series of carefully worked out examples which give you illustrations of how you need to think about the problems presented, to render them solvable? So far as I can see, that's exactly what people like Abernethy, Clark, Burgar and the other people who work in this relatively new tradition do—they present what is, for many people in the MAs, a novel way of viewing the familiar but often badly understood phenomenon of forms and giving a series of concrete example of how those forms encode practical information about combat strategy and tactics, in a way that many students of the MAs have not been exposed to. Exactly what is wrong with that?



Well, I would welcome nothing more than some participation, in many of our TKD and KMA discussions, of a few karateka with background in Okinwan systems, as an antidote to the often toxic insularity and myth-recycling that goes on there. We have more than a few people in the KMAs—UpN will bear me out on this, I'm quite sure!—who simply cannot believe that TKD and TSD didn't spring out of the soil of the Korean peninsula fully formed and independent of all other influences, in spite of the known history of the modern KMAs. I certainly wouldn't dream of trying to discourage the participation of an OMA or FMA practitioner who might well be able to shed some light on the issues under discussion. If what someone is saying is wrong, fine, invoke the relevant facts to show why they're wrong. But I think it's a serious error to assume in advance that people who have experience primarily in one art have nothing to say of use in understanding either the technical or historical aspects of other arts.

Probably the single best piece of writing on the subject of Shakespeare's Hamlet, certainly one of the very best, came from the pen of someone who wasn't even a Shakepeare scholar. H.D.F. Kitto was an Oxford classical scholar who wrote a brilliant set of essays on Greek tragedy; but the final essay in his book wasn't about Sophocles or Aeschylus, but about Hamlet, and it was a real watershed. He was able to make a great deal of sense out of aspects of the play that had been regarded as cruxes—things that supposedly made no sense—by proposing a novel view of the play as an expression, in Elizabethan England, of certain themes that were at the heart of ancient Greek literature. From everything I heard about it, his essay had a great impact on Shakespeare scholarship. Not once, if I recall, did anyone respond to Kitto's novel interpretation by saying, 'Pay no attention to this chap, he's a classicist.'

"The kata's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king." Karate is a physical and mental activity with many subtleties in both lineage and practice. If one is discussing any physical activity, it helps tremendously if they have actually practiced it. I suppose I could by a neuro-anatomy text and read it, but I don't think that makes me ready to go and discuss brain surgery with the local MD's. I read music, but I would not presume to discuss piano technique with a concert pianist.

Discussions of Hamlet, on the other hand, are based upon having read the play and are completely intellectual in nature. Hamlet, with all of its intricacies and scholarly wars, is something anyone can read and comprehend on the intellectual level. It requires no hand/eye coordination, no necessity of making the connection between kata, bunkai, and the lineage from which they derived, and no mind/body integration...unless you fidget while reading.

[MBuzzy]

I find it interesting that most of the people in this discussion do not train in karate. I don't go onto TKD or Arnis threads and try to talk knowledgeably. I guess that is the custom on this forum.

Actually, it kind of is....I suppose the difference is that - in my experience - you would be welcome in any of those forums by most people. In my style forums, it is often the opinions of those outside the style that offer the greatest insight. Again, Exile's right on.

Everyone's viewpoint has a right to be acknowledged, from the lowest ranking student to the highest master in all styles. I personally feel that it is regrettable that so much great insight is missed by those who refuse to acknowledge outside opinions.

I make it a point in my day to day job to always ask the opinions of those around me, including the lowest airmen. And honestly, I learn a great deal from those who I "outrank" in martial arts. Not only from teaching them and dealing with others, but from their viewpoints and thoughts. But again....off topic, I just felt the need to respond to that one.

[exile]

Discussions of Hamlet, on the other hand, are based upon having read the play and are completely intellectual in nature. Hamlet, with all of its intricacies and scholarly wars, is something anyone can read and comprehend on the intellectual level. It requires no hand/eye coordination, no necessity of making the connection between kata, bunkai, and the lineage from which they derived, and no mind/body integration...unless you fidget while reading.

But think of it from the point of view of the professional Shakesperian scholar. S/he would be astonished at the idea that you can just read the play and be prepared to discuss it usefully. Each of Shakespeare's plays reflect complex relationships to other of his plays; they involve specialized knowledge of the sources for his plays—that issue is particularly complex in the case of Hamlet—as well as a knowledge of Elizabethan stagecraft conventions, conventional imagery and symbolism of the era (some of it very, very obscure and dense), the history of the physical manuscripts of the plays themselves (a lot of the problems in the interpretation of the play involve textual difficulties and errors—is dram of eale a corruption of dream of evil, or of something else; the choice can change the interpretation of a key line enormously), the insights offered by prior interpretations of the play (including plausible-seeming readings which turned out to be untenable when scrutinized in detail)... the list goes on and on; Shakespearean scholarship is one of the most dauting areas in English literature, because there's such a vast amount that, in theory, you have to master before you can hope to offer a genuinely new insight (for just a sample of the incredible density of already existing analysis, check out this (http://extra.shu.ac.uk/emls/06-3/sohmnote.htm) site, which offers an extremely intricate, complex and closely reasoned proof, based on the 'Mousetrap' text within the larger play, that Hamlet was formally illegitimate, i.e., born prior to his parent's marriage, and some equally dense further inferences based on that conclusion). But what Kitto did was find a very different angle on the play by bringing a novel interpretation of Greek tragic drama, which he developed and sustained by deep analysis and really brilliant criticism, over several preceding chapters, to this supposedly light-years-distant domain of literary scholarship. Elizabethan literary scholars have a reputation for eating interlopers alive, but Kitto's work had actually found a genuinely novel line, which made it possible to reconcile what had previously been thought of as mutually incompatible clues in the play.

The thing is, no matter what the area of knowledge, there are specialists who will point out, correctly, that there is an awful lot to learn before you can claim to really grasp the length, breadth and depth of that domain. But it's also possible to make contributions by virtue of an insight which gets at basic connections between that domain and certain others. I'm not saying that that's what any of us who study other arts than Okinawan MAs are trying to do—but our interests and perspectives intersect with a variety of other arts, and our observations may well correctly identify some linkage between what's happened in the OMAs and what's happened in our 'home' arts... or they may not. I'm not saying that at the level of concrete detail, someone who doesn't actually know the precise form and feel of Okinawan kata is likely to find a deep application/motivation for its particular content. But not all aspects of the problems are like that. There may be relationships of a more general kind between Okinawan, Japanese and Korean forms that legitimately prompt an "outsider's" interest in a specifically Okinawan (or Japanese or Korean) form; for example, comparing how different kata were reinterpreted in the daughter arts (we've done this a bit already with Rohai, right? And there are similar issues that arise with Empi and other 'descendent' analogues of Okinawan forms).

I'm just saying that it may well be a mistake to dismiss out of hand what someone not primarily based in the Okinawan arts has to say about an Okinawan topic. It really all depends on the substance of their comment, no?

[TimoS]

What I would like to see side by side are two kata from the same karate/kobudo system and see if there are any direct technical linkages.

So you mean that both karate and kobudo were from the same lineage? Not many of those available. Most of the ryukyu kobudo trace their lineage back to two teachers, either Taira Shinken or Shinko Matayoshi. Before them, it is my understanding that there weren't any comprehensive systems in place and both were formed in the 20th century. The only that comes to mind at this time (it's just 7:50 AM here and I just woke up :)) is Jinbukan Goju ryu and Jinbukan Kobudo, but again, even that style traces it's kobudo lineage to the sensei I mentioned earlier.

[cstanley]

But think of it from the point of view of the professional Shakesperian scholar. S/he would be astonished at the idea that you can just read the play and be prepared to discuss it usefully. Each of Shakespeare's plays reflect complex relationships to other of his plays; they involve specialized knowledge of the sources for his plays—that issue is particularly complex in the case of Hamlet—as well as a knowledge of Elizabethan stagecraft conventions, conventional imagery and symbolism of the era (some of it very, very obscure and dense), the history of the physical manuscripts of the plays themselves (a lot of the problems in the interpretation of the play involve textual difficulties and errors—is dram of eale a corruption of dream of evil, or of something else; the choice can change the interpretation of a key line enormously), the insights offered by prior interpretations of the play (including plausible-seeming readings which turned out to be untenable when scrutinized in detail)... the list goes on and on; Shakespearean scholarship is one of the most dauting areas in English literature, because there's such a vast amount that, in theory, you have to master before you can hope to offer a genuinely new insight (for just a sample of the incredible density of already existing analysis, check out this (http://extra.shu.ac.uk/emls/06-3/sohmnote.htm) site, which offers an extremely intricate, complex and closely reasoned proof, based on the 'Mousetrap' text within the larger play, that Hamlet was formally illegitimate, i.e., born prior to his parent's marriage, and some equally dense further inferences based on that conclusion). But what Kitto did was find a very different angle on the play by bringing a novel interpretation of Greek tragic drama, which he developed and sustained by deep analysis and really brilliant criticism, over several preceding chapters, to this supposedly light-years-distant domain of literary scholarship. Elizabethan literary scholars have a reputation for eating interlopers alive, but Kitto's work had actually found a genuinely novel line, which made it possible to reconcile what had previously been thought of as mutually incompatible clues in the play.

The thing is, no matter what the area of knowledge, there are specialists who will point out, correctly, that there is an awful lot to learn before you can claim to really grasp the length, breadth and depth of that domain. But it's also possible to make contributions by virtue of an insight which gets at basic connections between that domain and certain others. I'm not saying that that's what any of us who study other arts than Okinawan MAs are trying to do—but our interests and perspectives intersect with a variety of other arts, and our observations may well correctly identify some linkage between what's happened in the OMAs and what's happened in our 'home' arts... or they may not. I'm not saying that at the level of concrete detail, someone who doesn't actually know the precise form and feel of Okinawan kata is likely to find a deep application/motivation for its particular content. But not all aspects of the problems are like that. There may be relationships of a more general kind between Okinawan, Japanese and Korean forms that legitimately prompt an "outsider's" interest in a specifically Okinawan (or Japanese or Korean) form; for example, comparing how different kata were reinterpreted in the daughter arts (we've done this a bit already with Rohai, right? And there are similar issues that arise with Empi and other 'descendent' analogues of Okinawan forms).

I'm just saying that it may well be a mistake to dismiss out of hand what someone not primarily based in the Okinawan arts has to say about an Okinawan topic. It really all depends on the substance of their comment, no?
Hey...I'm an English major with grad degrees.:wavey: You are preaching to the choir...however, even though I agree with you (mostly), I think there is a difference. Not that big a deal, just an observation. I would consider it presumptuous if I jumped into a thread on a martial art I had not studied and began making categorical statements about it...but, that is just me.

PS Checked my shelf and I cannot find a reference to Kitto in either: Greenblatt, Bloom, Rosenbaum, Akroyd, Jackson, Oxford Companion to Shakespeare, Taylor, Auden, Hattaway, or Roper. Help me out here. I want to read this essay. Thanks.

[exile]

Hey...I'm an English major with grad degrees.:wavey: You are preaching to the choir...however, even though I agree with you (mostly), I think there is a difference. Not that big a deal, just an observation. I would consider it presumptuous if I jumped into a thread on a martial art I had not studied and began making categorical statements about it...but, that is just me.

PS Checked my shelf and I cannot find a reference to Kitto in either: Greenblatt, Bloom, Rosenbaum, Akroyd, Jackson, Oxford Companion to Shakespeare, Taylor, Auden, Hattaway, or Roper. Help me out here. I want to read this essay. Thanks.

OK, a quick note on Kitto: his book was called Form and Meaning in Drama, if I recall correctly; it was published by Penguin in 1956. When I first started university, I placed out of English composition and the other required English classes; so what I took was a semester-long course on Hamlet. We read the play inch by inch, did a critical annotation of a passage of our choice based on the first Folio text, and read, and offered counter-commentary on, what felt like a couple of hundred years' worth of criticism: all the old war horses, and some odd birds too, like Kitto, who had come in from left field. That's where I encountered him, and his essay always stuck in my memory... I think the book is out of print, alas.

[cstanley]

OK, a quick note on Kitto: his book was called Form and Meaning in Drama, if I recall correctly; it was published by Penguin in 1956. When I first started university, I placed out of English composition and the other required English classes; so what I took was a semester-long course on Hamlet. We read the play inch by inch, did a critical annotation of a passage of our choice based on the first Folio text, and what felt like a couple of hundred years' worth of criticism: all the old war horses, and some odd birds too, like Kitto, who had come in from left field. That's where I encountered him, and his essay always stuck in my memory... I think the book is out of print, alas.

I'll call my old English prof and check around. Sounds interesting. BTW, there is a new edition of Hamlet out that has both versions of the play and line by line comparisons of the controversial stuff. A friend just told me about it the other day, so I have to get the details. Not sure I want to plunge back nto that stuff, but it is tempting. I re-read Shakespeare every few years...most of it anyway.

[exile]

I'll call my old English prof and check around. Sounds interesting. BTW, there is a new edition of Hamlet out that has both versions of the play and line by line comparisons of the controversial stuff. A friend just told me about it the other day, so I have to get the details. Not sure I want to plunge back nto that stuff, but it is tempting. I re-read Shakespeare every few years...most of it anyway.

I'd love to see what they do with the dram of eale stuff! Sounds like a must-have for serious Shakespeareans. I reread a number of the plays too every so often—not Titus Andronicus, obviously! :lol:—but Hamlet, The Winter's Tale, As You Like It, and The Tempest mostly, the really lovely, lyrical ones.

Haven't thought about that class in years... It was very weird, I remember, reading G. Wilson Knight on Hamlet; he had this idea that it was Hamlet who had introduced the evil at the center of the action in the play... very strange.

Hmmm... we seem to have gotten somewhat far afield from the OP topic... not sure how it happened, but I have the sneaking suspicion that this time it's much more my fault than Lisa's...

[cstanley]

Alright, back to karate/kobudo. I was saying it is difficult to posit any direct relationship between karate and kobudo, as in one evolving directly from the other. Things just didn't happen in such a systematic way on Okinawa. Japan is different.

[Flying Crane]

I read music, but I would not presume to discuss piano technique with a concert pianist.


Why not?

[cstanley]

Why not?


Because I do not play the piano. Look, there is nothing more presumptuous than someone with "book knowledge" of an art, science, or skill who tries to talk knowledgeably about it with people who have been doing it for years and for whom it is either a profession or an avocation. It is fine to ask questions or genuinely seek information, but there are too many people out there who think that, because they are merely clever, they are experts in everything.

In my dojo, students like that spend a lot of time at lean and rest or in shiko dachi against the wall. It seems to cure them...or they leave.

[Kacey]

I read music, but I would not presume to discuss piano technique with a concert pianist.


Why not?

I agree with Flying Crane. Why not? I am not a master, and I am the first one to admit that there are things I don't know or don't understand... but from the time I started TKD as a white belt, I was encouraged to talk about what I was doing with anyone and everyone, as a way to increase my knowledge. The responses I received helped to increase my knowledge, understanding, and interest - not because I remained silent and listened while my seniors talked (although that happened too), but because, when appropriate, I discussed my ideas and interpretation with those who knew more - and they were able to help guide me when I was not understanding, correct me when I was wrong, and congratulate me when I was correct.

I have never had a discussion with anyone who was skilled at something that I was interested in, where my desire to discuss - no matter the scarcity of my knowledge - was unwelcome. I have learned more from such discussion - about a wide variety of topics - than I could ever have learned on my own. I have also, on occasion, brought a sufficiently different viewpoint that the expert - despite much greater knowledge and experience - was able to use my viewpoint to help with something related to that person's area of expertise. I have been corrected frequently - but my desire to learn more and express my opinion based on my own - often limited experience and understanding has never offended anyone; nor have I been asked to refrain from such discussions in informal settings, such as Martial Talk.

Formal settings are a different issue, and I can understand not getting involved in high level discussions there.

As far as the original topic (which I will address despite never having trained in a weapons-based style) - I can see it going both ways, depending on the art, the location, the circumstances, etc. - either from empty hands to weapons, or vice versa - or even having them develop side-by-side and borrowing from each other. There are, after all, only so many ways in which the human body can move or react.

[cstanley]

I agree with Flying Crane. Why not? I am not a master, and I am the first one to admit that there are things I don't know or don't understand... but from the time I started TKD as a white belt, I was encouraged to talk about what I was doing with anyone and everyone, as a way to increase my knowledge. The responses I received helped to increase my knowledge, understanding, and interest - not because I remained silent and listened while my seniors talked (although that happened too), but because, when appropriate, I discussed my ideas and interpretation with those who knew more - and they were able to help guide me when I was not understanding, correct me when I was wrong, and congratulate me when I was correct.

I have never had a discussion with anyone who was skilled at something that I was interested in, where my desire to discuss - no matter the scarcity of my knowledge - was unwelcome. I have learned more from such discussion - about a wide variety of topics - than I could ever have learned on my own. I have also, on occasion, brought a sufficiently different viewpoint that the expert - despite much greater knowledge and experience - was able to use my viewpoint to help with something related to that person's area of expertise. I have been corrected frequently - but my desire to learn more and express my opinion based on my own - often limited experience and understanding has never offended anyone; nor have I been asked to refrain from such discussions in informal settings, such as Martial Talk.

Formal settings are a different issue, and I can understand not getting involved in high level discussions there.

As far as the original topic (which I will address despite never having trained in a weapons-based style) - I can see it going both ways, depending on the art, the location, the circumstances, etc. - either from empty hands to weapons, or vice versa - or even having them develop side-by-side and borrowing from each other. There are, after all, only so many ways in which the human body can move or react.

I think the key for me is when they try to appear more knowledgeable about it than they are. Friendly discussions are fine. Maybe I'm just persnickety.

[Flying Crane]

Because I do not play the piano. Look, there is nothing more presumptuous than someone with "book knowledge" of an art, science, or skill who tries to talk knowledgeably about it with people who have been doing it for years and for whom it is either a profession or an avocation. It is fine to ask questions or genuinely seek information, but there are too many people out there who think that, because they are merely clever, they are experts in everything.

In my dojo, students like that spend a lot of time at lean and rest or in shiko dachi against the wall. It seems to cure them...or they leave.


Some valid points you make.

I think it's a matter of pretending to be an expert in a subject, vs. having something valid to contribute to a discussion. A non-karate person shouldn't pretend to be an expert when discussing karate topics. But a kung fu person can contribute to the discussion because of similarities in training methods, as well as a certain level of shared and influenced history between the arts.

I don't think the non-karate people tried to pass themselves off as experts in karate matters. They just had a potentially relevant connection to express.

So if you have an interest in and knowledge about music, feel free to talk to a concert pianist, if that person is willing. Just don't pretend to be an expert on piano technique. Don't pretend to be what you are not.

[cstanley]

Some valid points you make.

I think it's a matter of pretending to be an expert in a subject, vs. having something valid to contribute to a discussion. A non-karate person shouldn't pretend to be an expert when discussing karate topics. But a kung fu person can contribute to the discussion because of similarities in training methods, as well as a certain level of shared and influenced history between the arts.

I don't think the non-karate people tried to pass themselves off as experts in karate matters. They just had a potentially relevant connection to express.

So if you have an interest in and knowledge about music, feel free to talk to a concert pianist, if that person is willing. Just don't pretend to be an expert on piano technique. Don't pretend to be what you are not.

Agreed. I actually enjoy Exile's and others' input...it just seemed odd that they would spend so much time in a karate forum when there are perfectly good forums for their own arts. Sometimes they are re-discovering the wheel that many of us in traditional arts have been rolling for decades.

[MBuzzy]

I think the key for me is when they try to appear more knowledgeable about it than they are. Friendly discussions are fine. Maybe I'm just persnickety.

If I make a blatent historical or content error, please correct me - especially if I come off as "trying to pass myself off as an expert." That is by far the furthest thing from my own intention and I am pretty sure that I speak for most others on this board as well.

As to the topic, apparently I was mistaken that we are speaking about the conceptual relevance that an empty hand style may have flown out of a weapons style or vice versa, or their creation in tandem. Obviously I was mistaken, since we are now discussing very specific styles of Karate of which I know nothing.

Although, I must say that I have always encouraged discourse and other points of view....both in my martial arts training, personal life, and work. I feel that if my position and knowledge aren't strong enough to refute or support another claim and discuss, it is indicative that I need more research.

[MBuzzy]

Agreed. I actually enjoy Exile's and others' input...it just seemed odd that they would spend so much time in a karate forum when there are perfectly good forums for their own arts. Sometimes they are re-discovering the wheel that many of us in traditional arts have been rolling for decades.

Personally, that's why I read this forum regularly. Because my style has deep roots in Okinawa and Japan. I personally seek insight into my own style from the knowledge of others.

[Kacey]

Agreed. I actually enjoy Exile's and others' input...it just seemed odd that they would spend so much time in a karate forum when there are perfectly good forums for their own arts. Sometimes they are re-discovering the wheel that many of us in traditional arts have been rolling for decades.

And this is bad... why? I'm being perfectly serious here; there are many things I was told - by my instructor, by my parents, by friends, etc - that made no sense to me whatsoever until I discovered and/or experienced them for myself. So what if someone discovers for themselves something that others already know? The understanding comes from the discovery.

[cstanley]

And this is bad... why? I'm being perfectly serious here; there are many things I was told - by my instructor, by my parents, by friends, etc - that made no sense to me whatsoever until I discovered and/or experienced them for myself. So what if someone discovers for themselves something that others already know? The understanding comes from the discovery.

I meant that sometimes discussions among karate seniors get sidetracked by non-karate guys who are going over already plowed ground. If you are a TKD student, the wheels you need to be discovering are not in a karate forum.

[Kacey]

I meant that sometimes discussions among karate seniors get sidetracked by non-karate guys who are going over already plowed ground. If you are a TKD student, the wheels you need to be discovering are not in a karate forum.

Discussions about specific techniques - techniques and terms specific to a particular art, or questions about patterns or testing requirements - may well be sidetracked by people from other arts who use different terminology. Nonetheless, a discussion of fighting stance - whether you call it back stance, L-stance, cat stance, or any of a large variety of other terms - is still a discussion of what stance it is most effective to fight out of. Even with those things specific to a particular art, those from another art may well have insight that is lacking in those intimately familiar with it, because their perspective is different.

If it truly bothers you, then skip those posts and respond to the ones that are on the topic you wish to discuss. For me, the different perspectives are one of the reasons I come here; they add both depth and breadth to the discussions, and thus to my understanding of my own art, both as an individual entity and in how it relates and compares to other arts.

[cstanley]

Discussions about specific techniques - techniques and terms specific to a particular art, or questions about patterns or testing requirements - may well be sidetracked by people from other arts who use different terminology. Nonetheless, a discussion of fighting stance - whether you call it back stance, L-stance, cat stance, or any of a large variety of other terms - is still a discussion of what stance it is most effective to fight out of. Even with those things specific to a particular art, those from another art may well have insight that is lacking in those intimately familiar with it, because their perspective is different.

If it truly bothers you, then skip those posts and respond to the ones that are on the topic you wish to discuss. For me, the different perspectives are one of the reasons I come here; they add both depth and breadth to the discussions, and thus to my understanding of my own art, both as an individual entity and in how it relates and compares to other arts.

Never mind...

[exile]

Agreed. I actually enjoy Exile's and others' input...it just seemed odd that they would spend so much time in a karate forum when there are perfectly good forums for their own arts. Sometimes they are re-discovering the wheel that many of us in traditional arts have been rolling for decades.

But that's the very point, from my point of view—rediscovering that wheel! It's true that there are fora for TKD and other KMAs, but what you may not realize is that there is a kind of split in the view that TKDists have on their own art. This is, I think, important to understand if you're trying to figure out why a KMAist would hang around a karate forum. It has to do with a kind of world view:


do you see TKD as being, more than anything else, a fighting system for CQ self-defense, and if so,
do you see the technical content of TKD as being embedded in the hyungs—basically the Korean analogues of karate kata, and made up of the same subsequences of movements as those in karate kata (especially Shotokan), such that the logic of these sequences—why these particular movements are put together—is derived from the original logic of the bunkai for the source kata which gave rise to the Korean forms; and
do you see the optimal way of thinking about bunkai—the one that gives you the greatest practical advantage—to be that which the founding masters of Okinawan karate had in mind in designing the kata that then went to Japan, then Korean (where they were subsequently dismantled and reassembled in many cases)?


If you answer 'yes' to all three of these (and many, if not most TKDists do not, I'd guess), then it's very likely you're going to be interested in the karate threads because, in a way, you're going to closer to the original source meanings of those hyung sequences. Imagine that you're an academic, specializing in the French language. You are certainly going to want to keep up with the work of scholars of Latin, because a lot of what you see in the grammar of French is going to reflect patterns and idiosyncracies present in the grammar of Latin. For those of us who, to a greater or lesser extent, adopt the three-part package I just sketched, reinventing the wheel is exactly what we want to do because, if we succeed, then we'll have the wheel—and with the pressure to teach TKD from a sport-sparring/form performance (as vs. analysis) perspective, we're pretty sure that at the moment we don't actually have the wheel, or at least, all of it.

You said something in an earlier post about people like Abernethy in effect rediscovering what at least people in Okinawa have been doing all along. But those of us in the TKD camp who I'm talking about don't have access to the Okinawan perspectives, any more than the Korean MAists who founded the original Kwans had access to the deepest bunkai when they were learning their MA in Tokyo in the 1930s, under Funakoshi or Kanken (apart from Hwang Kee). Someone like Abernethy or Rick Clark provides concepts and tools of analysis that we can use to get a much deeper insight into the combat meaning of the forms we've learned than is normally provided (given that, as one of our most experienced TKD practitioners on MT, Kwan Jang, has pointed out, the Kwan founders really didn't have a very deep understanding of the combat applications of the kata they brought home from Tokyo were, and that pretty much determined what their students and students' students knew). In a sense, what at least some of us in the KMAs are interested in doing—including, I think the OPer in this thread—is rethinking the KMAs so that they regain the depth of combat content inherent in their descent from a system with both strikes, tuite and kyosho components, but in addition the very well-developed kicking weapons that have developed over the past half-century. I'm not talking about the complex 540s and high-glitz tournament point-scorers, but the basic power kicks, the hard roundhouse, back- and side-kicks using the open-hip biomechanics that so many of practice devotedly.

Let me quote a passage from one of Kwan Jang's posts, part of a reply to a query of mine, where the issue had to do with effectiveness at various fighting ranges:


My point on the topic of patterns/forms is that there is a significant and growing percentage of practioners of the martial arts in general and TKD in particular that feel that forms are a time buster and just a filler. And that they could be using their training time to better use. A popular point that is brought up is that you would never fight for real in a static front or horse stance with your hand at your hip when you block or punch. Practitioners will often question why spend time practicing "basics" that do not resemble the striking that you would use in a real fight. The way you train is the way you react.

To me, this is a VERY valid point...if you are going by the karate-do bunkai or the Korean-ized variation of it. Neither is anywhere close to being realistic and I would hope that no one around here would actually try to fight or defend themselves in such a manner. I have actually seen people who tried to do this and thought that they were being "true to their art" by trying to fight that way. I had one guy at the gym I worked out at who spent months trying to sell me the virtues of this type of fighting everytime he saw me there.

Contrast this with the applications/bunkai when you include the kyusho and tuite including the close quarter joint locks, grab and strikes, ect. This system is very similar to many schools of JJ and has a very strong proven track record both in combat and in self defense. If you break this down, then build it up through the scales of force and resistance with a partner, then the movements in your form become a syllabus for giving much greater depth to your TKD practice. IMO, if you use the forms the way they were originally intended, they are a valid and important part of your training and if you master the material in this syllabus, then TKD (and karate-do) become far more complete combative systems rather than just kick/punch systems.

I am not trying to "bash" TKD, but I do see some wrong turns that it has taken IMO. There are things that are already part of the system that most students have already had training in, but few practioners are putting it to effective use. Low kicks, sweeps, takedowns, elbow and knee strikes, joint locks, trapping and infighting,... these are all a part of TKD. However, I see so many instructors only giving a token effort or ignoring all these altogether. Many TKD students even know much of this even exists in their art, all some of them know how to do is slap a hogu with a cut kick.

(The whole post is here (http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=940240).) This passage expresses nicely my personal 'take' on the kind of TKD I want to do (I am not for a moment saying that I think anyone else must, or needs to, think of things in the same way; it's just my own personal interpretation of TKD that I'm talking about here). In view of that, you can see perhaps just why it is that I, and a few other of us KMA types, hang around karate discussions. We don't feel that we have anything to tell you about your own art, I don't think; on the contrary, we're trying to apply what karateka know (at least, the ones who themselves are similarly minded about their own art) to the understanding and practice of our own....

[Flying Crane]

I guess I simply feel that you find information wherever you happen to find it.

The originator of this thread is not himself a karate guy, but rather practices and teaches Tang Soo Do. This has not been a discussion among karate seniors.

If a group of karate "seniors" (however that may be defined) is having a discussion in which they do not want potentially side-tracking input from non-seniors, then they would be better served having the discussion in private, and not in a forum such as this, which welcomes respectful input from all members.

[cstanley]

But that's the very point, from my point of view—rediscovering that wheel! It's true that there are fora for TKD and other KMAs, but what you may not realize is that there is a kind of split in the view that TKDists have on their own art. This is, I think, important to understand if you're trying to figure out why a KMAist would hang around a karate forum. It has to do with a kind of world view:

do you see TKD as being, more than anything else, a fighting system for CQ self-defense, and if so,
do you see the technical content of TKD as being embedded in the hyungs—basically the Korean analogues of karate kata, and made up of the same subsequences of movements as those in karate kata (especially Shotokan), such that the logic of these sequences—why these particular movements are put together—is derived from the original logic of the bunkai for the source kata which gave rise to the Korean forms; and
do you see the optimal way of thinking about bunkai—the one that gives you the greatest practical advantage—to be that which the founding masters of Okinawan karate had in mind in designing the kata that then went to Japan, then Korean (where they were subsequently dismantled and reassembled in many cases)?
If you answer 'yes' to all three of these (and many, if not most TKDists do not, I'd guess), then it's very likely you're going to be interested in the karate threads because, in a way, you're going to closer to the original source meanings of those hyung sequences. Imagine that you're an academic, specializing in the French language. You are certainly going to want to keep up with the work of scholars of Latin, because a lot of what you see in the grammar of French is going to reflect patterns and idiosyncracies present in the grammar of Latin. For those of us who, to a greater or lesser extent, adopt the three-part package I just sketched, reinventing the wheel is exactly what we want to do because, if we succeed, then we'll have the wheel—and with the pressure to teach TKD from a sport-sparring/form performance (as vs. analysis) perspective, we're pretty sure that at the moment we don't actually have the wheel, or at least, all of it.

You said something in an earlier post about people like Abernethy in effect rediscovering what at least people in Okinawa have been doing all along. But those of us in the TKD camp who I'm talking about don't have access to the Okinawan perspectives, any more than the Korean MAists who founded the original Kwans had access to the deepest bunkai when they were learning their MA in Tokyo in the 1930s, under Funakoshi or Kanken (apart from Hwang Kee). Someone like Abernethy or Rick Clark provides concepts and tools of analysis that we can use to get a much deeper insight into the combat meaning of the forms we've learned than is normally provided (given that, as one of our most experienced TKD practitioners on MT, Kwan Jang, has pointed out, the Kwan founders really didn't have a very deep understanding of the combat applications of the kata they brought home from Tokyo were, and that pretty much determined what their students and students' students knew). In a sense, what at least some of us in the KMAs are interested in doing—including, I think the OPer in this thread—is rethinking the KMAs so that they regain the depth of combat content inherent in their descent from a system with both strikes, tuite and kyosho components, but in addition the very well-developed kicking weapons that have developed over the past half-century. I'm not talking about the complex 540s and high-glitz tournament point-scorers, but the basic power kicks, the hard roundhouse, back- and side-kicks using the open-hip biomechanics that so many of practice devotedly.

Let me quote a passage from one of Kwan Jang's posts, part of a reply to a query of mine, where the issue had to do with effectiveness at various fighting ranges:



(The whole post is here (http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=940240).) This passage expresses nicely my personal 'take' on the kind of TKD I want to do (I am not for a moment saying that I think anyone else must, or needs to, think of things in the same way; it's just my own personal interpretation of TKD that I'm talking about here). In view of that, you can see perhaps just why it is that I, and a few other of us KMA types, hang around karate discussions. We don't feel that we have anything to tell you about your own art, I don't think; on the contrary, we're trying to apply what karateka know (at least, the ones who themselves are similarly minded about their own art) to the understanding and practice of our own....


The why didn't the TKD folks seek out Okinawan karate schools and practitioners as soon as they had the "Aha!" experience that they were not getting the real deal?

Most comments like Kwan Jang's are frustrating to many karate practitioners because these people continue to view kata as a mere compendium of techniques and they focus only on the surface, becoming upset about "static" stances and what they see as unrealistic sequences. He does have some understanding that there is more there than meets the eye, but too many of these folks still have a "technique" oriented view of karate.

The fighting techniques in kata, or bunkai, are only a small part of the kata...I would almost say they are merely incidental to the kata, but that would be misunderstood. Focusing primarily on applications is like viewing a great work of art and focusing only on the brush strokes, or visiting the Louvre only to remain outside counting the bricks in the wall.

[Makalakumu]

The why didn't the TKD folks seek out Okinawan karate schools and practitioners as soon as they had the "Aha!" experience that they were not getting the real deal?

Most comments like Kwan Jang's are frustrating to many karate practitioners because these people continue to view kata as a mere compendium of techniques and they focus only on the surface, becoming upset about "static" stances and what they see as unrealistic sequences. He does have some understanding that there is more there than meets the eye, but too many of these folks still have a "technique" oriented view of karate.

The fighting techniques in kata, or bunkai, are only a small part of the kata...I would almost say they are merely incidental to the kata, but that would be misunderstood. Focusing primarily on applications is like viewing a great work of art and focusing only on the brush strokes, or visiting the Louvre only to remain outside counting the bricks in the wall.

With you saying this, I would be very interested on what you think of this (http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=59916)...

This really is the culmination of my martial arts practice. From the time when I was 11, when I first started martial arts, this is my conclusion.

[tshadowchaser]

I am going to interject myself in this thread for a moment
the thread is titled empty hands flows from weapons and the opening post has some interesting points and views that can be discussed.

If anyone wants to discuss how and why seniors in any art should only discuss that art then start a separate thread on that subject.

This is an open forum and all have a right to post their thoughts on any subject here, be they correct of way misinformed.

as a side note how many seniors do you think are here in any system and what is a senior.

ok this is off topic so lets get back to the topic of the thread please

[The Master]

I meant that sometimes discussions among karate seniors get sidetracked by non-karate guys who are going over already plowed ground. If you are a TKD student, the wheels you need to be discovering are not in a karate forum.
One of the facets that I enjoy when I make the time to frequent this portion of the world wide web is this places normal tolerance to what some call "newbies" as they walk among the giants. This may irk you as some are not as knowing nor as experienced as you. Not all who seek are at your level yet. Only by seeking further wisdom and guidance will they hope to be so.

Perhaps you should meditate for a time on that and yourself seek further enlightenment.

[The Master]

I am going to interject myself in this thread for a moment
the thread is titled empty hands flows from weapons and the opening post has some interesting points and views that can be discussed.

If anyone wants to discuss how and why seniors in any art should only discuss that art then start a separate thread on that subject.

This is an open forum and all have a right to post their thoughts on any subject here, be they correct of way misinformed.

as a side note how many seniors do you think are here in any system and what is a senior.

ok this is off topic so lets get back to the topic of the thread please
My apologies for continuing the tanget. I will refrain from additional deflection here.

[cstanley]

With you saying this, I would be very interested on what you think of this (http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=59916)...

This really is the culmination of my martial arts practice. From the time when I was 11, when I first started martial arts, this is my conclusion.

I'm not sure what you are asking.

[Makalakumu]

I'm not sure what you are asking.

I am a KMAist trying to explore my roots. The link I posted is the culmination of my research into those roots and how I have attempted to shape my curriculum around them. Just take a look and comment from an Okinawan Karateka perspective.

[cstanley]

I am a KMAist trying to explore my roots. The link I posted is the culmination of my research into those roots and how I have attempted to shape my curriculum around them. Just take a look and comment from an Okinawan Karateka perspective.

I think it is a nice outline which still focuses primarily on technique. The stuff about Itosu is only part of the story. Itosu learned his kata, at least a lot of it, from Matsumura. These kata are not in any way "sanitized." Many like to speak of the Pinan as "sanitized," but, if you know the other kata Itosu taught the Pinan do not seem sanitized at all. They are actually full of rather brutal techniques. Itosu trained in strict privacy, and his students reported that his classes were spartan and sometimes almost brutal. Although there are no recorded fights of Itosu's, it is said that his punching power was truly phenomenal.

I believe any effort to help people understand KMA is good. I am sure that your analysis will be helpful to people.

Kata, if practiced regularly over years, create a state of mind...mushin is the Japanese word. You can win a fight with one or two techniques...forget about technique. Most people only master a few of the techniques in kata, anyway. Think about mushin...do you know the story of the tea master and the samurai?

[exile]

sometimes almost brutal. Although there are no recorded fights of Itosu's, it is said that his punching power was truly phenomenal.

So you regard the story of his fight with Tomoyase as apocryphal?

[cstanley]

So you regard the story of his fight with Tomoyase as apocryphal?

Nagamine doesn't mention it, Bishop doesn't either. Most of the people I ever mentioned it to (including Kuniba) think it is questionable. Who knows for sure. You'd think Nagamine would have mentioned it in his book, though. He specifically states there are no recorded fights of Itosu.

[exile]

Nagamine doesn't mention it, Bishop doesn't either. Most of the people I ever mentioned it to (including Kuniba) think it is questionable. Who knows for sure. You'd think Nagamine would have mentioned it in his book, though. He specifically states there are no recorded fights of Itosu.

Maybe... I don't really have a horse in this race; but an alternative possibility is that Nagamine thought that it might reflect poorly on Itosu? Protection of reputation might have trumped historical accuracy. It's not really critical to the argument, but you do see the story around a bit. Richard Kim retells it in The Weaponless Warriors—what's your take on the accuracy of his history?

[Makalakumu]

I think it is a nice outline which still focuses primarily on technique. The stuff about Itosu is only part of the story. Itosu learned his kata, at least a lot of it, from Matsumura. These kata are not in any way "sanitized." Many like to speak of the Pinan as "sanitized," but, if you know the other kata Itosu taught the Pinan do not seem sanitized at all. They are actually full of rather brutal techniques. Itosu trained in strict privacy, and his students reported that his classes were spartan and sometimes almost brutal. Although there are no recorded fights of Itosu's, it is said that his punching power was truly phenomenal.

This is something I still seek to understand. In TSD, we still practice the Shotokan kata. From that standpoint, when I compare lineages, the kata "seem" sanatized. And I have practiced shotokan. It was my first art. My teacher's teacher was Master Fusaro in St. Paul.


I believe any effort to help people understand KMA is good. I am sure that your analysis will be helpful to people.

Thank you. I kind of fell into TSD because of my current teacher. If he hadn't been on the level that I expected, I never would have stayed as long as I had. Fortunately, we are both on the same plane of existence regarding our conceptions of this martial art.


Kata, if practiced regularly over years, create a state of mind...mushin is the Japanese word. You can win a fight with one or two techniques...forget about technique. Most people only master a few of the techniques in kata, anyway. Think about mushin...do you know the story of the tea master and the samurai?

I am very familiar with this story. I used it as part of a 500,000 word science fiction story I am currently writing. Here is the exerpt...




Suddenly, an old mutoi story came to Yoshua. It was that of the Tea Master. According to the legend, even though he had had no training in the martial arts, he was still required to dress as a member of the warrior class because he was a courtier of the Monastery. The High Priestess, impressed with the professionalism and austerity in which the man performed his ceremony chose to send the Tea Master to other Monasteries in order to teach others his great skill.

Well, one day, while this man was walking on the Highway close to another Monastery, he met up with a poor looking Ronin. The man, thinking to scare the poor Tea Master into giving him some money, promptly challenged him to a duel. The Tea Master knew that to refuse the duel and give the money would bring great dishonor to his Monastery, so he accepted the challenge even though he knew he was going to die. The only thing he asked for was a brief postponement so he could prepare. In reality, he wanted to learn how to die with honor, or as the Mutoi called it, the Art of Dying. The Ronin agreed and the Tea Master ran back to the Monastery he just came from.

He immediately approached their training hall and asked to see the sensei of the Monastery. Normally requests of that kind needed to come through channels or by invitation, but the students, seeing the need painted on the Tea Master’s face, forewent protocol and escorted him to see the sensei.

The Tea Master promptly explained his situation to the sensei and asked him to teach him the Art of Dying. The sensei, who was an old and wise man, thought for a moment and then asked the Tea Master to make him some tea. Shocked, but willing to do anything to learn the Art of Dying, the Tea Master asked for the fixings and carefully began the ceremony. He calmly performed the ritual of mixing the tea with a professionalism that gave the various miniscule parts of the complicated ceremony an easy look. When he poured the tea for the sensei, the man explained that the Tea Master already knew the Art of Dying.

“When you fight your duel with your masterless castaway,” the sensei explained, “Do it as if you are making tea. Calmly take off your coat and fold it up. Tie your hair back with a ribbon and hitch up your hakama. Next, draw your sword and hold it over your head like this. When you see your opponent move or shout and strike. It will probably result in a mutual slaying.”

Bowing deeply, the Tea Master graciously thanked the sensei and then headed back to where he had left the Ronin. The Tea Master prepared for his own death just as he would have performed the Tea Ceremony and the Ronin, seeing an entirely different man in front of him revoked his challenge and begged the Tea Master’s pardon.

Yoshua looked at the Daemonlord facing him with an even and steady stare. Even though he knew nothing of the powers that were supposedly inside of him or the powers that the Daemonlord could bring to bare on him, he prepared with all confidence and aplomb of one who knew his own worth and was not afraid to show it.

“Are you ready to die, Human?” Narishma spat as he took a step forward.

“Are you?” Yoshua answered with such calm assurance that the Daemonlord stopped in his tracks and dissipated into nothingness, leaving only swirling gray mists. The Nephilim, Narishma Furazana, had fled the field.



What do you think?

[exile]

I'd like to revisit the original issue of weapons-based vs. empty-hand MA relations from maybe a different point of view. We've been thinking in terms of weapons, from what I can see, as battlefield weapons, right? Close–quarters edged weapons, most likely. Now doesn't this mean that the question of the relationship between weapons-based skills and empty-hand skills is really, in a sense, about the origins of the MAs, specifically, whether the empty-hand arts had their origins in military or civilian contexts?

What I mean is, if you say that there's a systematic linkage between the two, then you're suggesting that the empty-hand arts were ultimately created by military combat experts, since those are the ones with the technical weapons training. If you think that kenjutsu and empty-hand bujutsu are systematically linked, then you seem to be more or less committed to the idea that the latter was introduced by practitioners of the former. And conversely, if you think that, in a certain culture, civilians created the empty-hand MAs, then you are a good part of the way to saying that it would make sense to see nothing beyond a generic relationship between weapons-based and empty-handed technique sets in that culture.

This is a bit of an oversimplification—there are hybrid stories conceivable; I suggested one earlier—but these will do for the sake of argument.

So now, what do we know about the origins of the empty hand MAs in Japan as vs. Okinawa? Isn't it the case that, as in the case of Daito-ryu Aikijutsu and other ryu-proprietary unarmed fighting systems, the sources do seem to be military in nature, derivative from, or at least parallel to, the weapons techniques? Whereas in Okinawa, although the picture is muddy, there's some reason to believe that the sources of karate were largely civilian in origin (given that the whole indigenous Okinawan poplulation was essentially relegated to civilian status after the Satsumas showed up)?

So as a simple beginning to an approach to the question, would we not suppose that in Japan there would be a fairly close parallel between the indigenous empty-handed combat arts on the one hand and the main weapon-based arts on the other, whereas in Okinawa there would be much less of a resemblance—and therefore that the karate which reached the Japanese mainland in the 20th century and was given the Funakoshi treatment during the 20s and 30s would look much less like any formal weapon system that we know?

So how do the observed facts tie in with this very rough, oversimplified picture?

OK, fire away! :)

[cstanley]

Maybe... I don't really have a horse in this race; but an alternative possibility is that Nagamine thought that it might reflect poorly on Itosu? Protection of reputation might have trumped historical accuracy. It's not really critical to the argument, but you do see the story around a bit. Richard Kim retells it in The Weaponless Warriors—what's your take on the accuracy of his history?

Kim's stuff is very unreliable. The kata in his book are doctored from the originals, Kim's background is questionable, and he has been known to fabricate. Without getting into a shouting match with any Kim advocates on here, I would not use him as a reliable source.

[cstanley]

I'd like to revisit the original issue of weapons-based vs. empty-hand MA relations from maybe a different point of view. We've been thinking in terms of weapons, from what I can see, as battlefield weapons, right? Close–quarters edged weapons, most likely. Now doesn't this mean that the question of the relationship between weapons-based skills and empty-hand skills is really, in a sense, about the origins of the MAs, specifically, whether the empty-hand arts had their origins in military or civilian contexts?

What I mean is, if you say that there's a systematic linkage between the two, then you're suggesting that the empty-hand arts were ultimately created by military combat experts, since those are the ones with the technical weapons training. If you think that kenjutsu and empty-hand bujutsu are systematically linked, then you seem to be more or less committed to the idea that the latter was introduced by practitioners of the former. And conversely, if you think that, in a certain culture, civilians created the empty-hand MAs, then you are a good part of the way to saying that it would make sense to see nothing beyond a generic relationship between weapons-based and empty-handed technique sets in that culture.

This is a bit of an oversimplification—there are hybrid stories conceivable; I suggested one earlier—but these will do for the sake of argument.

So now, what do we know about the origins of the empty hand MAs in Japan as vs. Okinawa? Isn't it the case that, as in the case of Daito-ryu Aikijutsu and other ryu-proprietary unarmed fighting systems, the sources do seem to be military in nature, derivative from, or at least parallel to, the weapons techniques? Whereas in Okinawa, although the picture is muddy, there's some reason to believe that the sources of karate were largely civilian in origin (given that the whole indigenous Okinawan poplulation was essentially relegated to civilian status after the Satsumas showed up)?

So as a simple beginning to an approach to the question, would we not suppose that in Japan there would be a fairly close parallel between the indigenous empty-handed combat arts on the one hand and the main weapon-based arts on the other, whereas in Okinawa there would be much less of a resemblance—and therefore that the karate which reached the Japanese mainland in the 20th century and was given the Funakoshi treatment during the 20s and 30s would look much less like any formal weapon system that we know?

So how do the observed facts tie in with this very rough, oversimplified picture?

OK, fire away! :)

I think your assessment is quite on the money with no further elaboration.

[eyebeams]

Given that we now have a much clearer picture about the relationship between Fukien martial arts and karate, and can see them in practice, many of these arguments rely on a degree of historical ambiguity that doesn't exist any more. We can see people practice the original Chinese versions of many kata and see that there isn't really an FMA-style methodology.

(This is not to say there aren't armed and unarmed resemblances or specific concepts that resemble FMA - I personally think there are more than many people think - but I don't think the weapons-first methdology is present.)

Also, consider that a lot of Okinawan kobudo is actually fairly new, synthesized from very short one and two person exchanges to modern parallels to karate forms. Versions of the original practices survive as performance arts. See a documentary here:

http://bunkashisan.ne.jp/search/ViewContent_e.php?from=10&ContentID=252