What do you teach, again?

[stone_dragone]

When does karate cease to be karate? At what point does the incorporation of techniques outside of a karate system (i.e. Aikijutsu-type wrist locks, muay thai-style kicks, kenpo-esque maneuvers and principles, judo-like throws, etc) or similar to those outside of the system begin to define the system being taught.

For example, while perusing the ‘net the other day, I came across a video of some students demonstrating some lapel grab defenses. I think the style was a type of ninjutsu based on their footwear. I have never studied at a dojo that teaches said style, but their techniques were near identical to what I teach. Some of what I teach was taught to me by my instructors, some was extrapolated based on an understanding of movement. I will never claim to teach an art that I’m not qualified to teach, but at what point does the overlap in technique mean that I’m no longer teaching the same art as I started with.

Another example. I teach a blend of Goju Ryu and Shotokan, but I am studying kenpo as well. I find that I am incorporating more and more kenpo into my teaching (i.e. principles of motion, power principles, etc) and applying it to even the Shotokan and Goju katas I teach. At what point do I stop calling it karate, although I wouldn’t be correct in calling it kenpo, either?

Just a set of thoughts…

 

[Grenadier]

There's nothing fundamentally wrong with incorporating significant amounts of information from other systems, as long as such things do not directly contradict the fundmantals of your current system.

As long as you still teach the fundamentals of your current system, then it's still whatever style of Karate that it originally was; just with a lot of spice added to it.

After all, chili is still chili, regardless of how many different kinds of hot pepper or meats one throws into the pot. Now, if you go way overboard with the meat and forget to keep the chili powder at a good level, then it becomes nothing more than chili-flavored hamburger.

Now I'm hungry...

 

[SFC JeffJ]

I'd say what you teach is what the core fundementals are. If they shift, you are teaching something different. I say add away, as long as the techniques you are adding don't contradict the base of what you do.

Jeff

 

[Bigshadow]

Well, IMO, one must step back and look at the broader picture. Many arts have the same "techniques", often they call them slightly different names, but you take omote gyaku from what I train in "Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu", I am positive a Jujitsu student would know what it was, because they have done the same wrist technique. I don't believe any martial art has cornered the market on techniques. There are techniques that will be common across many arts simply because it is about humans combating humans.

Even though there are commonalities across many arts, there can be profound differences in doctrines, tenets, methods of training, and technique. These things define the art and if you stray from these, you are not doing that art.

 

[Dark]

When does karate cease to be karate?

When you change the name...

Another example. I teach a blend of Goju Ryu and Shotokan, but I am studying kenpo as well. I find that I am incorporating more and more kenpo into my teaching (i.e. principles of motion, power principles, etc) and applying it to even the Shotokan and Goju katas I teach. At what point do I stop calling it karate, although I wouldn’t be correct in calling it kenpo, either?

I'm with big shadow here, there are allot of martial arts over-lap in way of techniques. The techique, he discribes appears in every martial or did at one time, including very old school greeko-roman wrestling. Does that mean his Budo Taijutsu is any more or less encompassing?

No, if you break any art down to scientific principles they are all the same, just the names, personal choice of focuses and traditions of the culture they evolved from have changed. Now if you were to evolve it past tradition and reapply the principles in other ways to better fit you, you haven't changed karate but changed the perspective of how you define karate.

"A rose by any name would smell just as sweet" - William Shakespear...

 

[Explorer]

If each art studied is comprehensive there must be large areas of overlap ... because there are a limited number of ways to violate the human body with another human body.

Good technique in Shotokan is good technique in White Crane is good technique in Te.

For me, differences exist in the philosophy of martial arts or self defense. My Isshin Ryu partners tend to fight straight down the center line ... the guy who quits first, loses. Those guys are brutal and very, very tough.

The influence of White Crane on my branch of Shorin Ryu has us moving to the outside of the attack. We try to position ourselves so our center line faces the attacker and their center line faces away from us.

 

[Jimi]

IMO it depends on the material added. For example, a Tae Kwon Do Institute with Instructors tranined from with-in its own curriculum starts teaching a Japanese Armbar (just what they have seen in the UFC) , that's wrong in my opinion. The same for some-one who is ranked in TKD all of a sudden starts teaching Muay Thai knee strikes,MMA submissions, and Kali stick disarms etc... as TKD after just a weekend seminar in MMA, not right. That's just an extreme example of what I do not agree with. A Shotokan Instructor showing a self-defense technique using a wrist lock similar to other arts, not so out of the ballpark so to speak. If some of the information is close cousin so to speak, I feel it is less of an issue. Most people will blend what they have access to into their arsenal, but it should be from a compitent source, not just kung fu theater or what they saw a demo team do at a tournament. I have issue with some-one who's training is limited to TKD and they spin around a pair of Nunchaku yelling Bruce Lee like battle cries (watchaaa!) and claim it to be JF/JKD. JMHO. PEACE

 

[Adept]

At what point do I stop calling it karate, although I wouldn’t be correct in calling it kenpo, either?

Just a set of thoughts…

Who cares? It's only a name. Please don't fuss over it...

 

[Andrew Green]

Karate as a generic term? Probably when it stops being kata based would be my vote. "Goju ryu" it stops being much earlier.

But at the end of the day it is just a name, and IMO all these "distinct" styles where a mistake IMO, martial arts is something to be tailored to the individual, not a system to conform too.

 

[Explorer]

Karate as a generic term? Probably when it stops being kata based would be my vote. "Goju ryu" it stops being much earlier.

But at the end of the day it is just a name, and IMO all these "distinct" styles where a mistake IMO, martial arts is something to be tailored to the individual, not a system to conform too.

I'll have to go with you on this one, Andrew. All of the arts must be tailored to the individual if they are to be of use.

 

[w.kaer]

martial arts is something to be tailored to the individual, not a system to conform too.

I cringe a bit when I hear this. There is a slippery slope in this discussion which eventually leads to the question of "Does the artist get to define his own art?"

Should we tailor the art to the individual or should the individual tailor him/herself to the art. (or more reasonably, find the art which suits them best. I believe the latter.

The more experienced martial artist can recognize the inevitable similarities in styles. I guess I am pointing out the difference for the novice level students like myself.

 

[tradrockrat]

Whenever these discussions get started, I cringe as well. The way I figure it - the martial artist came first - before the art. Therefore, at the base of it all it really IS the Martial Artist first, and the style is subserviant to him. All of martail art history is a man or woman taking what existed before and changing it to suit their needs and become more effective for them. If it worked, others sought to learn it, if it didn't it died with the practitioner. If the practitioner lived, they sought to change it to make it more effective - for them. Viola, New Style of MA.

If change wasn't acceptable or even necessary in the Martial Arts there would be exactly one MA for every culture and only one.

If you really know your stuff - it doesn't matter whaty style it came from - go ahead and teach it. If you learned it from a book, well you're probably an idiot to be teaching it.

If you're really worried, call your school a MA academy and admit that much of what you will teach came from different styles.

problem solved

 

[stone_dragone]

All of this discussion is great. I did use myself as an example, but I guess I gave more impression that I was unsure as to what to do about my situation that is actually correct.

I know what I teach, I'm open about its nature and I don't claim anything that I haven't earned in the eyes of the instructor presenting it to me. I teach according to a specificly stated strategic doctrine and sound defensive principles. I am open to new ideas and doctrines, but for now, until my strategic doctrine changes, I will only teach what fits into it's relatively large boundries.

My instructor knows what I teach and has given me full approval. He always believed and teaches that more knowledge is better. I agree.