In other words, no documentation then.
Bunkai, history, and "authorities"
- Thread starter SahBumNimRush
- Start date
In other words, no documentation then.
punisher73
Senior Master
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2004
- Messages
- 3,959
- Reaction score
- 1,058
http://www.usadojo.com/articles/tang-soo-do-forms.htm There must be other people who created the term "Tang Soo Do", because this one talks about how the founder of TSD says he learned the Pinans in China with other karate masters (Funakoshi included). This is the story I had also read and heard from a TSD book.
Up until recently, most Korean masters did NOT admit that what they taught was japanese karate, they invented a long drawn out history that it was an ancient korean art over 2,000 years old. It is just now that more karate research is out there and made public that some korean masters are talking about what they did and most western students will talk about the true history. The "official" TKD story had nothing to do with japanese karate though due to the atrocities commited against the koreans.
Yes, the bubishi was a kung fu manual. It influenced okinawan karate. AGAIN, another piece of history that shows that karate was influenced by the chinese.
punisher73
Senior Master
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2004
- Messages
- 3,959
- Reaction score
- 1,058
Must be nice to read what you want to and ignore the other stuff. Did you miss the text that talked about the voyage with the man Koshankin? What exactly do you want as proof that chinese martial artists exchanged information with okinawans and it influenced them?
punisher73
Senior Master
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2004
- Messages
- 3,959
- Reaction score
- 1,058
Well, I guess I would call it "secret" when you snuck off in the middle of the night and never told anyone where you were going or what you were doing and weren't supposed to (Funakoshi's autobiography). Later, it became private in that only people introduced to the teacher were allowed and the "classes" were very small and almost one on one training.
Documentation implies documents.
GM HWANG Kee is not the founder of Tang Soo Do. That article is from 15 years or more ago and is considered outdated. Click the link I provided in the earlier post. The history of taekwondo starts with the creation of the kwans, with the kwan founders studying karate in japan, among other places.
Korean born masters at least the second or third generation ones teaching in the US, did not know the history of their art. I cannot tell you how many us based instructors I have spoken to. When asked who their direct teacher was, they would say "Lee Sabum", meaning Teacher Lee. They did not know their own teacher's first name, they never asked. History of the arts was also never discussed or covered in class. No one asked any questions about anything. They might know the name of their kwan jang, because it is on some of their dan certificates, but they did not know who their kwan jang's teacher was, much less the detailed origins of their martial art.
I have also visited numerous schools all over the US, and I always grab the flyers or other information. I often times see, but not always, some small reference to 2000 years ago. When I ask the teachers why they included that, they invariably all say that one of their american students helped make that. So blame the american student, not the korean born instructor on that one.
Question: Who, if anyone, learned white crane kung fu in Okinawa? In fact, who was the person who first brought that book to Okinawa? The bubishi would be a "document", but without more information, it is difficult to figure out exact where it fits into the scheme of things.
Put another way: If I said that okinawan karate was nothing more than transplanted kung fu, what would be your reply to that? If someone questioned te or tegumi as being nothing more than undocumented okinawan legend that played no part in the creation of karate which is really just kung fu from china, how would you respond? That is the type of accusations faced by taekwondo, and it would be interesting to see how karate practitioners respond when the same accusations are made against their art, when the shoe is on the other foot.
as well as history and authorities.
Hisotry of Bunkai in particular and those who in modern days decide they or we decide are authorities on Bunkai. We have a thread for who 'invented' TSD. if we are going to discuss just Korean arts perhaps we should use whatever word the Koreans use for Bunkai and the karateka will leave the Korean arts people to it there endless seeimng arguements on who invented what.
OP
SahBumNimRush
Master of Arts
- Thread Starter
- #70
While this discussion may have fragmented slightly, I think that the crossfertilization and origins are important to applications. Knowing where the art draws from can hopefully provide some insight into our own arts. DancingAlone has been putting out the question of tangible ties of Okinawa Te's katas to CMA forms in a few different threads of discussion, which I think is an excellent question. Alas, we have not heard of any CMA practicing parent forms of Okinawa Te katas. Obviously the bubishi illustrates movements found in Okinawa Te katas (and therefore Japanese Karate and old style Tang Soo Do forms). The question is were these katas assembled as a catalog of Chinese techniques by the Okinawans, or were these Chinese forms adapted by the Okinawans. Either way, it would be interesting to find a correlation between Okinawan techniques and Chinese techniques.
The same line of discussion can be made between Korean and Japanese arts, and has been. I don't think that discussion has been offensive or terribly off topic, since it does address the history of parent arts, which gives us a resource to look to for application.
The same line of discussion can be made between Korean and Japanese arts, and has been. I don't think that discussion has been offensive or terribly off topic, since it does address the history of parent arts, which gives us a resource to look to for application.
You can see CMA influence in OMA heavily in Goju-ryu & Uechi-ryu. Shorthand MA from Fujian. Bak Hok & Ngo Chor (White Crane & Five Ancestors) as best I can relate to what I've been lucky enough to be exposed to.
The OP I believe was asking for the history of the use of Bunkai in kata, the discussion has got onto whether there's a Chinese influence or an Okinawan, the history of Korean martial arts rather than the actual use of Bunkai. To a certain extent it doesn't matter where the influences came from, it's the actual use of Bunkai the discussion was about. Saying that certain katas came from certain countries if fine but what about the use of Bunkai in them? We've got totally away from the Bunkai, who uses it,the why, what and who teaches Bunkai now?
Cayuga Karate
Orange Belt
Dancingalone wrote:
Aside from what I have provided below, it is my intent to provide a full comparative analysis of all Okinawan kata that may be of Chinese origin. That would include video to show where movements from different kata overlap. This will be especially useful in understanding families of kata such as Kusanku, Passai, Rohai, and the like.
For the moment, off the top of my head, I can list the following components of Pinan that are found, at least in part, in other kata that are reputed to be of Chinese origin:
1. The third, fourth, fifth and sixth directions of Pinan Shodan (starting with the turn to back, through shutos to back corners) are all found in Kusanku.
2. The opening position of the hands in Pinan Shodan is found in: Arakaki Sochin, Nipaipo, Heiku, a version of Naihanchi and Seipei.
3. The three rising blocks in the initial forward sequence of Pinan Nidan has a corollary at the end of Jutte where there are two rising blocks, done twice.
4. The Pinan Nidan side-to-side (angular) sequences to the back of downward block step strike are found in a number of kata.
5. The Pinan Nidan sequence to the back is found twice in a version of Rohai.
6. The Pinan Nidan ending angular lower shuto movements are found in a version of Passai, which has a sequence of three to the front.
7. The double blocks found in the opening of Pinan Sandan are found in Naihanchi and at least one version of Passai.
8. The direction forward in Pinan Sandan, (spearhand followed by a spin) is very similar to what is found in several versions of Kusanku. (In Pinan Sandan, the hand moves down, whereas in Kusanku it raises up.)
9. The opening two movements of Pinan Yondan are found on a version of Kusanku Dai taught by Itosu.
10. The double downward block in Pinan Yondan (and Pinan godan) can be found in the some of the Kyan versions of Kusanku.
11. Pinan Yondan's side-to-side kicking/elbow movements followed by the high block/shuto/kick/backfist is found in Itosu's Kusanku Sho.
12. The following movements to the back corner (block/kick/double strike), as practiced in Funakoshi systems are the same as those found in Jiin.
13. The shuto endings of Pinan Yondan in Mabuni and Chibana systems, are the same as those found in the Mabuni P(B)assai sho, and the Chibana Gusukuma or koryu Passai.
14. The initial block strike movements in the opening of Pinan Godan are found in Mabuni's Kusanku dai. Coming forward, the x-block at chest/head height, and the following strike are quite similar to what is found at the opening of Matsumura Chinto.
15. Also in Pinan godan, following the final movement of the initial forward sequence, there is a spin to the back with a single right downward block, followed by a sweeping left straight block back to the front. This spin, with different hand movements is found in Matsumura Chinto. And many versions of Passai have a very similar movement, including the forward movement following with an elbow.
16. The final sequence in Funakoshi's Pinan Godan is found (on side only) in Funakoshi's Kusanku Dai. The hand positions of the second to last movement in Mabuni/Chibana's Pinan Godan are found in Mabuni's Kusanku Sho, Bassai Sho, Jitte, Jiin, Jion and a version of Rohai. The hand position of the final movement is found in a version of Rohai.
17. There is a supported block found in all Pinans except Pinan Nidan. This is found in a different context in the opening two movements of Itosu's Kusanku Sho. It is also found in the Ken Shin Ryu Kusanku, Arakaki Sochin.
18. If one looks at Kusanku, Jion, Seisan, Gojushiho, and a few other other kata there is a commonality to the overall design of the kata. There are alternating sets of side-to-side and forward. The side to side are short and symmetrical. The forward moving sequences often are often four steps which can include shuffles and spins.
The Pinan kata are faithful to this pattern. Pinan Shodan and Nidan, each have three sets of symmetrical side-to-side movements (although the opening of Nidan is not quite symmetrical.) These two kata have these side-to-side movements at the opening, following the first forward sequence, and following the second forward sequence to close the kata. Pinan Sandan has these symmetrical side-to-side sequences only at the beginning and end. Pinan Godan has it only at the beginning in Mabuni/Chibana versions, but also at the end in the Funakoshi version. Pinan Yondan has four sets of side to side movements, although the end is not quite symmetrical.
Pinan Shodan and Nidan, both have four steps forward and back, always beginning with the left foot. Pinan Sandan has four steps forward, with one being a spin. Pinan Yondan has four steps to the rear, and to the front it has four steps broken up by side-to-side kick/elbow.
Passai kata don't follow this pattern. They typically have a somewhat symmetrical ending, and about 1/3 of the way through, have a single projection off the mainline. But other than that, they go forward and back. A number of versions have a long sequence to the back (beginning with shutos found in Pinan Shodan), followed by raised arms, and shuffling forward. Then a single block in the opposite direction, followed by another long sequence to the rear. There are applications where this is treated as an entire sequence. This has a corollary in Pinan Godan which has a similar sequence but to the front (described above).
I have mentioned a number of kata above. Of these, Motobu states that Kusanku, Passai, Naihanchi, Chinto, Gojushiho and Rohai are of Chinese origin. Funakoshi states that Jiin and Jitte were taught by a Chinese sailor. Heiku is reported to have been brought back by Nakaima. Nipaipo was taught to Mabuni by a Chinese tea merchant named Gokenki. Sochin is from Arakaki, who was reported to have trained with the Chinese military attache Waishizan. We do not know the origin of Arakaki kata, nor do we know the origin of Seipei. It apparently was a kata practiced in or near Naha, that somehow got included in Higaonna's or Miyagi's curriculum.
-Cayuga Karate
Aside from what I have provided below, it is my intent to provide a full comparative analysis of all Okinawan kata that may be of Chinese origin. That would include video to show where movements from different kata overlap. This will be especially useful in understanding families of kata such as Kusanku, Passai, Rohai, and the like.
For the moment, off the top of my head, I can list the following components of Pinan that are found, at least in part, in other kata that are reputed to be of Chinese origin:
1. The third, fourth, fifth and sixth directions of Pinan Shodan (starting with the turn to back, through shutos to back corners) are all found in Kusanku.
2. The opening position of the hands in Pinan Shodan is found in: Arakaki Sochin, Nipaipo, Heiku, a version of Naihanchi and Seipei.
3. The three rising blocks in the initial forward sequence of Pinan Nidan has a corollary at the end of Jutte where there are two rising blocks, done twice.
4. The Pinan Nidan side-to-side (angular) sequences to the back of downward block step strike are found in a number of kata.
5. The Pinan Nidan sequence to the back is found twice in a version of Rohai.
6. The Pinan Nidan ending angular lower shuto movements are found in a version of Passai, which has a sequence of three to the front.
7. The double blocks found in the opening of Pinan Sandan are found in Naihanchi and at least one version of Passai.
8. The direction forward in Pinan Sandan, (spearhand followed by a spin) is very similar to what is found in several versions of Kusanku. (In Pinan Sandan, the hand moves down, whereas in Kusanku it raises up.)
9. The opening two movements of Pinan Yondan are found on a version of Kusanku Dai taught by Itosu.
10. The double downward block in Pinan Yondan (and Pinan godan) can be found in the some of the Kyan versions of Kusanku.
11. Pinan Yondan's side-to-side kicking/elbow movements followed by the high block/shuto/kick/backfist is found in Itosu's Kusanku Sho.
12. The following movements to the back corner (block/kick/double strike), as practiced in Funakoshi systems are the same as those found in Jiin.
13. The shuto endings of Pinan Yondan in Mabuni and Chibana systems, are the same as those found in the Mabuni P(B)assai sho, and the Chibana Gusukuma or koryu Passai.
14. The initial block strike movements in the opening of Pinan Godan are found in Mabuni's Kusanku dai. Coming forward, the x-block at chest/head height, and the following strike are quite similar to what is found at the opening of Matsumura Chinto.
15. Also in Pinan godan, following the final movement of the initial forward sequence, there is a spin to the back with a single right downward block, followed by a sweeping left straight block back to the front. This spin, with different hand movements is found in Matsumura Chinto. And many versions of Passai have a very similar movement, including the forward movement following with an elbow.
16. The final sequence in Funakoshi's Pinan Godan is found (on side only) in Funakoshi's Kusanku Dai. The hand positions of the second to last movement in Mabuni/Chibana's Pinan Godan are found in Mabuni's Kusanku Sho, Bassai Sho, Jitte, Jiin, Jion and a version of Rohai. The hand position of the final movement is found in a version of Rohai.
17. There is a supported block found in all Pinans except Pinan Nidan. This is found in a different context in the opening two movements of Itosu's Kusanku Sho. It is also found in the Ken Shin Ryu Kusanku, Arakaki Sochin.
18. If one looks at Kusanku, Jion, Seisan, Gojushiho, and a few other other kata there is a commonality to the overall design of the kata. There are alternating sets of side-to-side and forward. The side to side are short and symmetrical. The forward moving sequences often are often four steps which can include shuffles and spins.
The Pinan kata are faithful to this pattern. Pinan Shodan and Nidan, each have three sets of symmetrical side-to-side movements (although the opening of Nidan is not quite symmetrical.) These two kata have these side-to-side movements at the opening, following the first forward sequence, and following the second forward sequence to close the kata. Pinan Sandan has these symmetrical side-to-side sequences only at the beginning and end. Pinan Godan has it only at the beginning in Mabuni/Chibana versions, but also at the end in the Funakoshi version. Pinan Yondan has four sets of side to side movements, although the end is not quite symmetrical.
Pinan Shodan and Nidan, both have four steps forward and back, always beginning with the left foot. Pinan Sandan has four steps forward, with one being a spin. Pinan Yondan has four steps to the rear, and to the front it has four steps broken up by side-to-side kick/elbow.
Passai kata don't follow this pattern. They typically have a somewhat symmetrical ending, and about 1/3 of the way through, have a single projection off the mainline. But other than that, they go forward and back. A number of versions have a long sequence to the back (beginning with shutos found in Pinan Shodan), followed by raised arms, and shuffling forward. Then a single block in the opposite direction, followed by another long sequence to the rear. There are applications where this is treated as an entire sequence. This has a corollary in Pinan Godan which has a similar sequence but to the front (described above).
I have mentioned a number of kata above. Of these, Motobu states that Kusanku, Passai, Naihanchi, Chinto, Gojushiho and Rohai are of Chinese origin. Funakoshi states that Jiin and Jitte were taught by a Chinese sailor. Heiku is reported to have been brought back by Nakaima. Nipaipo was taught to Mabuni by a Chinese tea merchant named Gokenki. Sochin is from Arakaki, who was reported to have trained with the Chinese military attache Waishizan. We do not know the origin of Arakaki kata, nor do we know the origin of Seipei. It apparently was a kata practiced in or near Naha, that somehow got included in Higaonna's or Miyagi's curriculum.
-Cayuga Karate
Cayuga Karate
Orange Belt
Tez3 wrote:
The original post stated
This question is in part a question of history. The OP references the transition of do to jutsu, which arguably occurred over 100 years ago. (It also asks if there are historical texts that document application.) I pose the general question a bit differently. For the movements of kata that have survived until today, did bunkai get passed down from originators to the present? In my opinon, this question requires further clarification. What do we know of the origins of these kata. I would argue that we should believe Funakoshi when he names four Chinese military attaches that taught kata to Okinawans.
Now, some may argue that this is irrelevant. I would argue it goes to the heart of the question. This forum, and others, are filled with debates over the utility of many, if not all, kata movements. Knowledgeable sources claim little was handed down in bunkai. Let's assume that was the case. Why? Why do we have these kata, that were handed down, likely in part, by Chinese military authorities, yet much of which appears to have no real use in empty hand fighting.
In order to have a discussion of the possible implications of Chinese military personnel training Okinawans in combative arts, I think it necessary for the less informed readers of this forum to recognize that the primary sources we rely on for information regarding the origins of karate have documented Chinese sources for these kata. There are a number of posters here, and elsewhere, that are not fully familiar with these sources. They have been exposed to stories on the internet and in their dojos that may lack documentation. There are posters on this thread that point to Okinawan origins of the kata. So I have tried to provide the historical material necessary to have a fruitful discussion of the potential implications of this question.
Many have looked at some of these hundreds of sequences of movements. And we wind up scratching our heads wondering why. Why did Chinese military authorities teach the Okinawans kata for which many movements have not come down with application. We look at these movements and are plain perplexed at what these applications could possibly be. These movements just don't seem to map to the way empty hand fights work.
I plan to address this more fully in a separate post, with further documentation. However, it is my belief that if you don't see the question this way, you will not be prepared to understand the answer.
Why did Chinese military authorities teach to Okinawans, empty hand kata, where many of the movements appear to have no conceivable use in empty hand fighting?
If you are ready to accept that the historical record "clarifies" the OP question in this manner, then we can have a thoughtful discussion of these implications. I have a perspective that goes to the heart of the question. But that is for another thread. In this thread, I have tried to lay the groundwork.
-Cayuga Karate
The original post stated
This question is in part a question of history. The OP references the transition of do to jutsu, which arguably occurred over 100 years ago. (It also asks if there are historical texts that document application.) I pose the general question a bit differently. For the movements of kata that have survived until today, did bunkai get passed down from originators to the present? In my opinon, this question requires further clarification. What do we know of the origins of these kata. I would argue that we should believe Funakoshi when he names four Chinese military attaches that taught kata to Okinawans.
Now, some may argue that this is irrelevant. I would argue it goes to the heart of the question. This forum, and others, are filled with debates over the utility of many, if not all, kata movements. Knowledgeable sources claim little was handed down in bunkai. Let's assume that was the case. Why? Why do we have these kata, that were handed down, likely in part, by Chinese military authorities, yet much of which appears to have no real use in empty hand fighting.
In order to have a discussion of the possible implications of Chinese military personnel training Okinawans in combative arts, I think it necessary for the less informed readers of this forum to recognize that the primary sources we rely on for information regarding the origins of karate have documented Chinese sources for these kata. There are a number of posters here, and elsewhere, that are not fully familiar with these sources. They have been exposed to stories on the internet and in their dojos that may lack documentation. There are posters on this thread that point to Okinawan origins of the kata. So I have tried to provide the historical material necessary to have a fruitful discussion of the potential implications of this question.
Many have looked at some of these hundreds of sequences of movements. And we wind up scratching our heads wondering why. Why did Chinese military authorities teach the Okinawans kata for which many movements have not come down with application. We look at these movements and are plain perplexed at what these applications could possibly be. These movements just don't seem to map to the way empty hand fights work.
I plan to address this more fully in a separate post, with further documentation. However, it is my belief that if you don't see the question this way, you will not be prepared to understand the answer.
Why did Chinese military authorities teach to Okinawans, empty hand kata, where many of the movements appear to have no conceivable use in empty hand fighting?
If you are ready to accept that the historical record "clarifies" the OP question in this manner, then we can have a thoughtful discussion of these implications. I have a perspective that goes to the heart of the question. But that is for another thread. In this thread, I have tried to lay the groundwork.
-Cayuga Karate
We have threads about the history of various arts, and we've been through this before even down to the same arguments. It's a tad patronising to assume that the members of this forum are less than informed btw.
If you guys want to discuss, again, the more esoteric views of martial arts, crack on. I'll look to my usual source of information on kata and actually practice Bunkai. My style is pragmatic martial arts not just the theory. I want to know if something works and why, not that it came from China via Kathmandu via Timbucktu. More practice less showing off how much history we know.
If you guys want to discuss, again, the more esoteric views of martial arts, crack on. I'll look to my usual source of information on kata and actually practice Bunkai. My style is pragmatic martial arts not just the theory. I want to know if something works and why, not that it came from China via Kathmandu via Timbucktu. More practice less showing off how much history we know.
Cayuga Karate
Orange Belt
Dancingalone wrote:
I don't want to say that I believe comparative analysis would not be helpful. Rather, I have a different perspective. I start with my belief of several things about these Okinawan kata. The existing collection of kata is quite large. On Youtube there are perhaps 120 rather unique kata. I would imagine for every kata that has survived, one or more has perished. That is the natural but unfortunate fate of what was once passed down in secret, father to eldest son.
Imagine, over hundreds of years, Chinese men, some sailors, some military personnel, some former military personnel, passing down empty hand combative arts, in the form of hundreds of Chinese kata, to Okinawans who then practiced them faithfully. We have over a hundred of these relics remaining. They are opaque. Many, if not most movements appear to have no real relationship to how we understand fights to unfold.
I believe the first step is to look at the entire collection of movements of these kata as a whole. I want to try to best understand them, in their totality, as I can. This is a large undertaking for me. I am in my mid 50s, and my memory is not what it once was. But the task is not too formidable. The collection is large, but not too large for me.
Now, back to your question. Would I benefit from a comparative analysis with modern day Chinese systems? The problem is that the universe of movements to study would now increase from a thousand to twenty thousand. That's something that is beyond me. I leave that daunting task to others. There are likely hundreds of system across China, and thousands of forms. China is a vast country with a massive population. What is the relation of kata from one geographic area to another. Over hundreds of years the goals of martial arts have transitioned. What were once military arts where skill in the use of military weapons was the primary goal, have gradually evolved to have more of a focus on personal defense, where empty hand fighting capability is a key or the key or the sole goal.
For over 500 years, the Ryukyu kingdom traded with China on ships that sailed to and from the port city of Fuzhou. For much of that history, when Chinese trade and investiture (diplomatic) missions sailed to Okinawa, military authorities sailed on those missions. These military authorities were tasked with providing protection for these missions, and for much of this period piracy off the coast of China was a terrible menace. One authority has written that in the early 1800s, one single band of pirates (there were many) had 2,000 vessels and 70,000 men.
Once in Okinawa, these trading missions lasted 6 months. This provided an opportunity for the visiting Chinese military authorities to provide training in combative arts to a few carefully chosen members of the Okinawan aristocracy.
I recognize that there are those who are impatient with this level of analysis. There are those that just want to talk about technique. They believe they have no use for history. What does a history lesson have to do with fighting? How could events that happened 150 years ago and earlier possible matter now?
Well maybe, just maybe, these events hold a window into the heart of these kata. Take a moment and ask yourself a simple question. Imagine for a moment you are one of these visiting Chinese military authorities. Fully dwell on that for a moment. If you are going to share combative arts with these Okinawans, there is likely some purpose? What is that purpose.
Answer that question, and the quest to understand the potential application of these movements just might take you in a quite different direction, an entirely new dimension.
-Cayuga Karate
I don't want to say that I believe comparative analysis would not be helpful. Rather, I have a different perspective. I start with my belief of several things about these Okinawan kata. The existing collection of kata is quite large. On Youtube there are perhaps 120 rather unique kata. I would imagine for every kata that has survived, one or more has perished. That is the natural but unfortunate fate of what was once passed down in secret, father to eldest son.
Imagine, over hundreds of years, Chinese men, some sailors, some military personnel, some former military personnel, passing down empty hand combative arts, in the form of hundreds of Chinese kata, to Okinawans who then practiced them faithfully. We have over a hundred of these relics remaining. They are opaque. Many, if not most movements appear to have no real relationship to how we understand fights to unfold.
I believe the first step is to look at the entire collection of movements of these kata as a whole. I want to try to best understand them, in their totality, as I can. This is a large undertaking for me. I am in my mid 50s, and my memory is not what it once was. But the task is not too formidable. The collection is large, but not too large for me.
Now, back to your question. Would I benefit from a comparative analysis with modern day Chinese systems? The problem is that the universe of movements to study would now increase from a thousand to twenty thousand. That's something that is beyond me. I leave that daunting task to others. There are likely hundreds of system across China, and thousands of forms. China is a vast country with a massive population. What is the relation of kata from one geographic area to another. Over hundreds of years the goals of martial arts have transitioned. What were once military arts where skill in the use of military weapons was the primary goal, have gradually evolved to have more of a focus on personal defense, where empty hand fighting capability is a key or the key or the sole goal.
For over 500 years, the Ryukyu kingdom traded with China on ships that sailed to and from the port city of Fuzhou. For much of that history, when Chinese trade and investiture (diplomatic) missions sailed to Okinawa, military authorities sailed on those missions. These military authorities were tasked with providing protection for these missions, and for much of this period piracy off the coast of China was a terrible menace. One authority has written that in the early 1800s, one single band of pirates (there were many) had 2,000 vessels and 70,000 men.
Once in Okinawa, these trading missions lasted 6 months. This provided an opportunity for the visiting Chinese military authorities to provide training in combative arts to a few carefully chosen members of the Okinawan aristocracy.
I recognize that there are those who are impatient with this level of analysis. There are those that just want to talk about technique. They believe they have no use for history. What does a history lesson have to do with fighting? How could events that happened 150 years ago and earlier possible matter now?
Well maybe, just maybe, these events hold a window into the heart of these kata. Take a moment and ask yourself a simple question. Imagine for a moment you are one of these visiting Chinese military authorities. Fully dwell on that for a moment. If you are going to share combative arts with these Okinawans, there is likely some purpose? What is that purpose.
Answer that question, and the quest to understand the potential application of these movements just might take you in a quite different direction, an entirely new dimension.
-Cayuga Karate
Cayuga Karate
Orange Belt
Tez3 wrote:
Perhaps you could share your thoughts on the question posed in the OP. Do you believe that the concepts you are learning from your usual source have been handed down for a hundred or more years?
Do you believe that, in general, lots of bunkai came down with the kata as they were taught 75 years ago? Did Funakoshi pass on bunkai for his 20+ kata? Did Mabuni pass on bunkai for the movements in his 50 kata? Did Kyan pass on bunkai for all the movements in his 7 kata? Did Higaonna and Miyagi pass down bunkai for all movements in all of the naha-te kata they taught?
I am just curious at what your thoughts are here. This is central to the question posed in the OP.
-Cayuga Karate
Perhaps you could share your thoughts on the question posed in the OP. Do you believe that the concepts you are learning from your usual source have been handed down for a hundred or more years?
Do you believe that, in general, lots of bunkai came down with the kata as they were taught 75 years ago? Did Funakoshi pass on bunkai for his 20+ kata? Did Mabuni pass on bunkai for the movements in his 50 kata? Did Kyan pass on bunkai for all the movements in his 7 kata? Did Higaonna and Miyagi pass down bunkai for all movements in all of the naha-te kata they taught?
I am just curious at what your thoughts are here. This is central to the question posed in the OP.
-Cayuga Karate
I would be happy to see just one form from any chinese art that is substantially or even vaguely similar to any okinawan kata. For example, dancingalone and I once had a discussion about whether wing chun's siulimtao was in any way similar to gojuryu's sanchin. In dancingalone's opinion, they were not. oh well, maybe we will have better luck with some other form.
Cayuga Karate
Orange Belt
There has been much discussion on the origins of Korean kata here. I would like to make a couple of points. This is somewhat off-topic from the original post, but nevertheless, I would like to add my perspective.
First, I think everyone recognizes that many TKD systems have kata that appear to come from Funakoshi.
Second, there are some original histories that make no reference to this, and attribute TKD to ancient Chinese sources.
I think we may be able to infer something from a key development in the history of karate.
In the mid-thirties, the Japanese made a decision that this growing fighting art simply could not have the name "Chinese hand". There was an alternate reading of kanji, first written about by Chomo Hanashiro 30 years earlier, that seemed far more palatable to the Japanese. There was a meeting in Okinawa in 1936, and the Japanese made it quite clear that "empty hand" was the appropriate term for the art.
We can only speculate, but at that time Japan had had a long, bitter and bloody rivalry with the Chinese. At the very time of this discussion, a massive invasion of was only a year away, and there had been skirmishes since 1931.
The Japanese had a long and revered tradition of martial arts, and the newly adopted karate from recently annexed Okinawa was being rapidly integrated into their society and their schools. In this era of intense regional conflict, the widespread adoption of an art called "Chinese hand" was simply never going to happen. They wanted a "Japanese" art, and they in essence re-wrote history to remove the Chinese origins of this art.
Should we be surprised then that the Koreans, after having suffered a 35 year occupation by the Japanese, might want to do the same. Korea has been a stomping ground for expansionist Japanese going back to the late 1500s, when Japan launched two massive invasions. During WWII especially, the Japanese caused great hardship on the Korea population.
I would think it would have been perfectly understandable for the early Korean Tae Kwon Do historians in the 1950s and 1960s to simply remove mentions of the Japanese from their history. I argue above, that these kata are Chinese in origin. The Koreans can claim, IMO, with some accuracy, that their kata go back to ancient China, and their fighting art of that has a heavy emphasis on kicking, etc, also goes back to ancient China. Maybe they felt perfectly justified in writing the Japanese out of their history.
From time to time, history does repeat itself.
Regarding the transmission of bunkai, we can safely assume that the Koreans got little. It was not a meaningful part of Funakoshi's curriculum.
-Cayuga Karate
First, I think everyone recognizes that many TKD systems have kata that appear to come from Funakoshi.
Second, there are some original histories that make no reference to this, and attribute TKD to ancient Chinese sources.
I think we may be able to infer something from a key development in the history of karate.
In the mid-thirties, the Japanese made a decision that this growing fighting art simply could not have the name "Chinese hand". There was an alternate reading of kanji, first written about by Chomo Hanashiro 30 years earlier, that seemed far more palatable to the Japanese. There was a meeting in Okinawa in 1936, and the Japanese made it quite clear that "empty hand" was the appropriate term for the art.
We can only speculate, but at that time Japan had had a long, bitter and bloody rivalry with the Chinese. At the very time of this discussion, a massive invasion of was only a year away, and there had been skirmishes since 1931.
The Japanese had a long and revered tradition of martial arts, and the newly adopted karate from recently annexed Okinawa was being rapidly integrated into their society and their schools. In this era of intense regional conflict, the widespread adoption of an art called "Chinese hand" was simply never going to happen. They wanted a "Japanese" art, and they in essence re-wrote history to remove the Chinese origins of this art.
Should we be surprised then that the Koreans, after having suffered a 35 year occupation by the Japanese, might want to do the same. Korea has been a stomping ground for expansionist Japanese going back to the late 1500s, when Japan launched two massive invasions. During WWII especially, the Japanese caused great hardship on the Korea population.
I would think it would have been perfectly understandable for the early Korean Tae Kwon Do historians in the 1950s and 1960s to simply remove mentions of the Japanese from their history. I argue above, that these kata are Chinese in origin. The Koreans can claim, IMO, with some accuracy, that their kata go back to ancient China, and their fighting art of that has a heavy emphasis on kicking, etc, also goes back to ancient China. Maybe they felt perfectly justified in writing the Japanese out of their history.
From time to time, history does repeat itself.
Regarding the transmission of bunkai, we can safely assume that the Koreans got little. It was not a meaningful part of Funakoshi's curriculum.
-Cayuga Karate
