Where did the real Karate go?

[47MartialMan]

No... actually he's trying to find out exactly where you base your opinions from. What qualifications do you have to make any of the statements or assumptions posted by you in the thread?

That's what he's asking... if it gets inflammatory is dependant on your answer & verifiable background.

Well, first, I don't believe that this is his entire intention. And, I didn't know there was such a level of qualification to post. I am making posts in relation to how one may determine what is real, or is real meaning authentic?

And, such that anyone whom had studied and researched such subject, no matter what course, can still post their opinion.

Does one have to have a "verifiable" background? Again, why is there a need to ask for a level of qualification to post?

The subject of "real" can be examined by many ways other than seeking such "verifiable" background.

Lets say someone has a background, but someomne else disagrees with this background? Let's say that one has a biased or mind-set outlook, whereas someone else has one different? Only one can post their opnion?

Lets look at someone whom had trained in Arnis, can he not post a opinion on the subject of "real" or "authentic". Knowing that nothing withstands time without alterations? Let's say the Arnis practitioner, as a "open" martial artist, does extensive research on Karate, would he have less knowledge of it than someone practicing a "Karate Lineage art". Let's say, that the arnis practitioner cross trains and learn Karate. If tactics are such that leads him to believe that he practices "Karate", then it is "real" to him. What criteria is there to state that some does or doesn't practice "Karate". Much alone affix the word "real" to it. Given that Karate was formulated from Okinawan martial art, which in turn was formulated from Chinese studies. Formulated meaning that there are changes or alterations and perhaps not wholeheartenly.

Semantics, yes, but given the many consistancies, controversies, and politics of the subject, "real" is the opinion of the individual.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Just adding another 2 cents to my earlier 2. (Thats what, 5 cents?)

I'm an Arnis practitioner. The founder of my art, Remy Presas had a background in Karate, Shotokan I believe. The forms we do in my system are modified Shotokan forms. At one point in time, the art was described as "Filipino Karate". So, am I doing Karate?

In my opinion, no. I'm doing Modern Arnis, which has some similarities and influences that are Karate, but it isn't Karate. I see Karate as a Japanese art. My opinions have been effected by the information I've read here and elsewhere. I wouldn't pick up an English broadsword and think I'm doing Kendo and more than I would pick up a Katana and think I was fencing. To me, specific terms apply to specific things...with a few exceptions.

I believe one can train with intensity, honesty and 'fire', but that is more dependant on the practitioner, than the art, IMO.

To me, "American Karate" is like saying "Japanese Kung Fu" or "Russian Tai Chi". It's just not "right".

 

[47MartialMan]

I do undestand that there were different groupings of kata for the areas in which they developed. But the masters of the day did travel and learn from masters indifferent areas. My point was in referance to what Miyagi was asked upon his return to Okinawa from I believe South America. He was asked what style he taught and he replied, "Karate" and was again asked what style he taught. That is when he is supposed to have started using Goju-ryu. The different towns of Shuri, Tomari, and Naha are not that far apart and this alowed for "overlap" of principals and techniques. I guess I should have stated that "real" karate started to fade when it was introduced into Primary school physical education by Itosu, Funakoshi, etc. Again, just my $0.02 worth.

But how can "Real Karate" fade when it was created out of such other foundations? How, without being present so long ago, can anyone determine what is "real"? Sure there are documents and historians of the subject. But can such actually state that such, is absolutely "real"? Again, what is "real"? What is the criteria for "Real Karate"?

 

[47MartialMan]

1.) Just adding another 2 cents to my earlier 2. (Thats what, 5 cents?)

2.) I'm an Arnis practitioner. The founder of my art, Remy Presas had a background in Karate, Shotokan I believe. The forms we do in my system are modified Shotokan forms. At one point in time, the art was described as "Filipino Karate". So, am I doing Karate?

3.)In my opinion, no. I'm doing Modern Arnis, which has some similarities and influences that are Karate, but it isn't Karate. I see Karate as a Japanese art. My opinions have been effected by the information I've read here and elsewhere. I wouldn't pick up an English broadsword and think I'm doing Kendo and more than I would pick up a Katana and think I was fencing. To me, specific terms apply to specific things...with a few exceptions.

I believe one can train with intensity, honesty and 'fire', but that is more dependant on the practitioner, than the art, IMO.

4.) To me, "American Karate" is like saying "Japanese Kung Fu" or "Russian Tai Chi". It's just not "right".

1.) I believe that is 4 cents, unless you picked up another penny for a tip

2.) If it has certain/specific things, in a way, yes. But perhaps not completely.

3.) But given its history/lineage, is Karate a exclusive "Japanese" art? Nice analogy of the broadsword, Kendo, and fencing. However, given the specifics and criteria of each, there is distinction. However, given the relation of the specifics of the many different styles/branches of Karate, how can one be truely stated as "real" as to one not within the same specifics?

4.) I see given the term, Karate, being Japanese, although it was Okinawan influenced, and via Chinese, the Japanese have the "rights" on "real" Karate? Wasn't it the Japanese whom changed the charecters to make it their own? To mask its identity/origins? And such, can they lay total claim to it? So one can't say "Okinawan Karate"?

 

[clfsean]

Well, first, I don't believe that this is his entire intention. And, I didn't know there was such a level of qualification to post. I am making posts in relation to how one may determine what is real, or is real meaning authentic?

So in other words, you're not going to tell who you studied with, for how long & where? Why might that be? That tends to lead people to think you have something to hide or maybe aren't as up front as you should be when trying to talk as an authority on a topic.

And, such that anyone whom had studied and researched such subject, no matter what course, can still post their opinion.

Right... but he's asking about your studies... to again qualify the veracity of what you write.

Does one have to have a "verifiable" background? Again, why is there a need to ask for a level of qualification to post?

Of course not, but if you're going to speak with an air of authority on a topic (which you have tried to), then you need to be able to provide proof of such a level of authority & expertise.

The subject of "real" can be examined by many ways other than seeking such "verifiable" background.

Of course it can! However with today's modern & litigation based society, I always advise against such 'proof is in the pudding' contests, but there's always one....

Lets say someone has a background, but someomne else disagrees with this background? Let's say that one has a biased or mind-set outlook, whereas someone else has one different? Only one can post their opnion?

Sure post away but be prepared to defend your background in the meantime. If your background (training, teacher, lineage) is on the up & up, you've got nothing to worry about & people will know you by know the reputation of the school that accepted you & that you represent in public. If not, well...

Lets look at someone whom had trained in Arnis, can he not post a opinion on the subject of "real" or "authentic". Knowing that nothing withstands time without alterations? Let's say the Arnis practitioner, as a "open" martial artist, does extensive research on Karate, would he have less knowledge of it than someone practicing a "Karate Lineage art". Let's say, that the arnis practitioner cross trains and learn Karate. If tactics are such that leads him to believe that he practices "Karate", then it is "real" to him. What criteria is there to state that some does or doesn't practice "Karate". Much alone affix the word "real" to it. Given that Karate was formulated from Okinawan martial art, which in turn was formulated from Chinese studies. Formulated meaning that there are changes or alterations and perhaps not wholeheartenly.

Karate == Japanese word, thought, methods
Arnis == Filipino word, thought, methods

Arnis <> Karate just as Filipino <> Japanese. You can blend them, but you can't call one the other based on how a practitioner looks at it because they are specific in nature.

The Okinawan origins of Karate were based on their indigenous arts/techniques/theories & blending of Southern Chinese gung fu. However, the Okinawans didn't call it Gung Fu. They called it something different because it was something different than what was brought back from China by the time the public was exposed to it. Origins, yes... same thing, not even close.

Semantics, yes, but given the many consistancies, controversies, and politics of the subject, "real" is the opinion of the individual.

Circular logic again... at its finest...

 

[47MartialMan]

1.) So in other words, you're not going to tell who you studied with, for how long & where? Why might that be? That tends to lead people to think you have something to hide or maybe aren't as up front as you should be when trying to talk as an authority on a topic.

2.) Right... but he's asking about your studies... to again qualify the veracity of what you write.

3.) Of course not, but if you're going to speak with an air of authority on a topic (which you have tried to), then you need to be able to provide proof of such a level of authority & expertise.

4.) Of course it can! However with today's modern & litigation based society, I always advise against such 'proof is in the pudding' contests, but there's always one....

5.) Sure post away but be prepared to defend your background in the meantime. If your background (training, teacher, lineage) is on the up & up, you've got nothing to worry about & people will know you by know the reputation of the school that accepted you & that you represent in public. If not, well...

6.) Arnis <> Karate just as Filipino <> Japanese. You can blend them, but you can't call one the other based on how a practitioner looks at it because they are specific in nature.

7.) The Okinawan origins of Karate were based on their indigenous arts/techniques/theories & blending of Southern Chinese gung fu. However, the Okinawans didn't call it Gung Fu. They called it something different because it was something different than what was brought back from China by the time the public was exposed to it. Origins, yes... same thing, not even close.

1.) Something to hide-no. Something that is not necessary-yes. Claiming to be a authority on it-no. Posting what I am thinking, or come to believe in my opinion-yes.

2.) Hmmn, so what I have written, trying to understand and seek other opinions on the term "Real Karate", has no veracity?

3.) I dont speak with the air authority, just seeking opinions of term. For instance, Kaith Rustaz had stated his IMHO, about what his opinion of what Karate should be. He gave good analogy and response. This could actually be used or read from someone whom has no idea one art from another. He did not post out of authority but out of opinion.

4.) So, does one have to study a Karate, per a direct lineage, to have a authority on it? There couldn't be any other means?

5.) I didn't know one to post on this forum needed to "defend" their background. I didn't know one had to have a certain criteria such as a reputation, to post. Do I have to be in Japan to study, or be the author of a book?

6.) If one blended them, he could use Karate in the newly-developed art? And such that he or his students practice, cannot be "real"?

7.) So, Okinawa did not have "Real Karate"?

 

[RRouuselot]

No, you are trolling to debunk or start controversy or aggitation.

Nope, I'm asking a simple question that merely requires a simple answer.
Not a problem for most people. But if you refuse to answer that's fine.
I was asking the question for the reseaon I stated previously. Just as Rich Parson's background is in S.E. Asain arts he posts a lot there but he has also trained in karate, if I am not mistaken. You hang around the karate threads and post there a lot so I am wondering what your background is.

 

[RRouuselot]

Fake being not "real" or not "authentic"?

Given that Karate, like many arts, are shrouded by some inconsistancies, how, even as it is passed from generation to generation, maintain the course of true "realism". Or is "real" per the actual sight and touch? Is authentic per the actual way it was done upon its creation?

Given the sword analogy, say there is a early (centuries) Katana sword made. Experts will state that it is authentic verses the manufactured ones using stainless steel, or other modern metals. (Though these are "real" and can be better.)

However, given that there is a swordsmith that still produces a sword the same way it has been done (and can't be really sure) from generation to genration. It is "real" to sight and touch, but is it "authentic" in comparison to the centuries old one?

If someone should branch off and start their own Karate system, is it "real" that it doesn't have "blessed" lineage or actual origin from Okinawa?

Interesting you should mention the katana since many believe it to have originated in Korea............

 

[RRouuselot]

RRouselot .........I have seen some make mention that you are a student of Oyata, is this Taika Oyata from Independance, Missouri?

Yes, I am his student.
He is from Okinawa and lives in Independance, Missouri.
His first dojo in the US was about just down the road from my house about 20 minutes away.

 

[Shorin-ryu Sensei]

1.)

. . .

4.) I see given the term, Karate, being Japanese, although it was Okinawan influenced, and via Chinese, the Japanese have the "rights" on "real" Karate? Wasn't it the Japanese whom changed the charecters to make it their own? To mask its identity/origins? And such, can they lay total claim to it? So one can't say "Okinawan Karate"?

Getting back to the original point of this thread:

Over the past several years I have seen real Karate replaced with acrobatics, loud screaming, (not to be confused with kiai) bad sportsmanship, arrogant instructors or coaches and deplorable conduct by parents.

The weapons forms have become extremely flashy. Real weapons have been replaced with garbage. The Bo Staff replaced with giant super light weight tooth picks. Chinese Swords replaced with flexible tin of some sort.

No matter how good you are with the weapon it&#8217;s the back flips and other non related theatrics that gets the win.
My concern is that people cannot separate showmanship from real defensive techniques. I have seen self defense demonstrations that would get you killed if you tried that crap on the streets. When entering into a self defense category of a tournament, the legitimate self defense will always lose to the theatrical stuff. Will we ever return to the real deal again?

-----

The only thing I have to say about "modern" karate, a la "American Karate" and any other tournament/sport version ....... if I want to see a theatrical performance, I'll go to the theatre or watch a movie ....

Rant Over ......

 

[RRouuselot]

Well, first, I don't believe that this is his entire intention. And, I didn't know there was such a level of qualification to post.

No need to get paranoid. I was just curious.

 

[RRouuselot]

Getting back to the original point of this thread:

Over the past several years I have seen real Karate replaced with acrobatics, loud screaming, (not to be confused with kiai) bad sportsmanship, arrogant instructors or coaches and deplorable conduct by parents.

The weapons forms have become extremely flashy. Real weapons have been replaced with garbage. The Bo Staff replaced with giant super light weight tooth picks. Chinese Swords replaced with flexible tin of some sort.

No matter how good you are with the weapon it’s the back flips and other non related theatrics that gets the win.
My concern is that people cannot separate showmanship from real defensive techniques. I have seen self defense demonstrations that would get you killed if you tried that crap on the streets. When entering into a self defense category of a tournament, the legitimate self defense will always lose to the theatrical stuff. Will we ever return to the real deal again?

-----

The only thing I have to say about "modern" karate, a la "American Karate" and any other tournament/sport version ....... if I want to see a theatrical performance, I'll go to the theatre or watch a movie ....

Rant Over ......

I think what you have described is unique in “American” Karate. In Japan they haven’t gone that way….yet. Here they just “dance” kata for looks, keeping some what to the original form but use the new JKA/JKF versions, and are pretty clueless as to the defensive applications. Actually most Japanese Karateka I have met don’t care about kata application. Kumite is done with little or no contact…..the so called “tippy-tap” tournaments.

Okinawa still puts great emphasis on the kata’s defensive applications and most tournaments do kumite full contact.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Nope, I'm asking a simple question that merely requires a simple answer.
Not a problem for most people. But if you refuse to answer that's fine.
I was asking the question for the reseaon I stated previously. Just as Rich Parson's background is in S.E. Asain arts he posts a lot there but he has also trained in karate, if I am not mistaken. You hang around the karate threads and post there a lot so I am wondering what your background is.

Actually my offical training is only in FMA's. I have trained with people who train in TKD/Karate/Kenpo. In the Karate area it was students of Oshima Sensei. I do not know more than that, but I was never a student of his.

 

[47MartialMan]

Ok, getting back to issue of "real". So, someone whom had studied in Japan, came to America, teaches most of what they had learned, but call it, for example, American Karate-whatever, is this no longer "real" Karate? And what if they want their background/identity masked, for whatever reason, being a illegal immigrant, legal problems, or other servere, etc., do they teach or practice something less than "real"?

And, given the opinion, that "Karate" is Japanese origin, then there can be no such thing as "Okinawan Karate", given they had a different name for their arts.

Given this subject (of "real") had come up with Chinese whom have shaved their heads, have interesting moves, and wear robes, are they "Real Shaolin Monks"?

Not to mention another subject-is Ki/Chi "real"?

Now, it is not my intention to go off topic of "Real Karate", but the term can be misleading to those whom may be want to examine what is real.

So, what is the criteria, specifics, or guidelines, for "Real Karate"?

 

[47MartialMan]

Interesting you should mention the katana since many believe it to have originated in Korea............

There you go, going off topic again......

This can be another thread.....care to start one on this subject?

 

[47MartialMan]

No need to get paranoid. I was just curious.

No, I am not paranoid. Cautious on how you will take my wording out of context to use it for your own crusade.

Again, as usual, you led me off topic.

 

[RRouuselot]

Actually my offical training is only in FMA's. I have trained with people who train in TKD/Karate/Kenpo. In the Karate area it was students of Oshima Sensei. I do not know more than that, but I was never a student of his.

Sorry to use you as an example. I remembered you had mentioned some training in karate before.
Thanks for the update.

 

[arnisador]

Interesting you should mention the katana since many believe it to have originated in Korea............

I don't think I've heard that before!

 

[arnisador]

Actually, styles starting devolping almosr as soon as the art wwas brought to Okinwa. See Shuri-Te, naha-te, and Shorie Te. Then came shotokan, goju, wado ryu, chito ryu, kyokushin kai etc..

But even the first few you mentioned are well past the 36 families' appearance in Ryukyu, no?

Also there is not a ton of evidence as to a pre 1900 karate

It's clear something was happening, but I doubt there's much that's of use to an historian.

 

[47MartialMan]

But even the first few you mentioned are well past the 36 families' appearance in Ryukyu, no?
It's clear something was happening, but I doubt there's much that's of use to an historian.

But given this, if any is to be taken as inconsistancies, can there be any "real" Karate?