Empty hand flows from weapons...

[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

Pinan Yondan

 

[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

 

[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

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

Unig Ziow.

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.