Funakoshi's First Book...1922?

[Telfer]

Today I was in a bookstore flipping through an english translation of Gichin Funakoshi's first book 'To-Te Jitsu' published in 1922.

http://www.amazon.com/te-Jitsu-Gichin-Funakoshi/dp/0920129226

This was interesting because he notes in the intro that originally there were only two styles based on body mass.

Heavy (thick-boned) students would be best suited for Shorei-Ryu while lighter students would benefit from Shaolin-Ryu.

I've never heard of this in any modern book...but it makes perfect sense!

Lets hear your thoughts on the history...and do you agree that modern teachers should teach different Karate styles based on the students body weight???

 

[Aiki Lee]

I'm afraid I don't quite understand. What is meant by saying there are only two styles (Shorei and sholian)? Does he mean there were only these forms for the people of his area?

Can you be more specific?

 

[dancingalone]

Today I was in a bookstore flipping through an english translation of Gichin Funakoshi's first book 'To-Te Jitsu' published in 1922.

http://www.amazon.com/te-Jitsu-Gichin-Funakoshi/dp/0920129226

This was interesting because he notes in the intro that originally there were only two styles based on body mass.

Heavy (thick-boned) students would be best suited for Shorei-Ryu while lighter students would benefit from Shaolin-Ryu.

I've never heard of this in any modern book...but it makes perfect sense!

Lets hear your thoughts on the history...and do you agree that modern teachers should teach different Karate styles based on the students body weight???

He's referring to the tendency of Shuri-te based systems to use snapping to generate power. The Naha systems rely more on muscular strength and mass for power.

As for the validity of the idea, I agree to an extent but keep in mind that pretty much any Westerner would be HUGE compared to the typical build of an Okinawan male from Funakoshi's era. There's a danger of over-generalization there, as following his logic to the extreme, all Westerners should be studying Goju-ryu.

 

[Telfer]

What is meant by saying there are only two styles (Shorei and Shoalin)? Does he mean there were only these forms for the people of his area?

Can you be more specific?

He doesnt get much more specific, only to say that in his time in Okinawa there were really only two meaningful distinctions in style...heavy and light.

And that a good teacher would not teach ONE style for all body types.

 

[Telfer]

As for the validity of the idea, I agree to an extent but keep in mind that pretty much any Westerner would be HUGE compared to the typical build of an Okinawan male from Funakoshi's era.

Ok, but this is not about height, its about bone structure.

The specific term he uses is "thick-boned".

One style takes advantage of mass while the other takes advantage of velocity as you described.

Now there are plenty of heavy set Japanese...otherwise there would be no Sumo.

And plenty of thin westerners.

 

[Telfer]

Interesting to note also that doesnt refer to his tradition as an ART, but rather a weapon system.

In other words he considered hands and feet as weapons you must learn to use, just as you would learn to use a sword or staff.

 

[Telfer]

Btw, this is one of the original photos from the book.

I wonder if this is the traditional Okinawan dress for practice???

 

[dancingalone]

Ok, but this is not about height, its about bone structure.

The specific term he uses is "thick-boned".

One style takes advantage of mass while the other takes advantage of velocity as you described.

Now there are plenty of heavy set Japanese...otherwise there would be no Sumo.

And plenty of thin westerners.

Hmm, do you really think he's talking about bone density in the medical sense? I don't. He's referring to size and mass and frame size. Again, you're exhibiting the dangers of projecting your modern conceptions into Funakoshi's writings and that's without even looking into the problems inherent with language translation.

Interesting to note also that doesnt refer to his tradition as an ART, but rather a weapon system.

In other words he considered hands and feet as weapons you must learn to use, just as you would learn to use a sword or staff.

Well, yes. You have to realize all the zen stuff so rife in karate is a very recent "innovation" added in most part by Japanese students.

Forgive me, I mean no insult, but you come across as being a bit naive. Is this your first exploration into Okinawan karate? If so, I'd suggest finding a good teacher that can guide you properly.

 

[dancingalone]

Btw, this is one of the original photos from the book.

I wonder if this is the traditional Okinawan dress for practice???

Dig around and you'll find pictures of men wearing essentially loin cloths to practice in. There was no such thing as "traditional dress for practice".

 

[Telfer]

Hmm, do you really think he's talking about bone density in the medical sense?

No, the word I quoted is "thick-boned" not density, which is something different altogether.

 

[Mark Lynn]

Dig around and you'll find pictures of men wearing essentially loin cloths to practice in. There was no such thing as "traditional dress for practice".

This is true, in fact there is an DVD, I rented it as a VT, on old karate masters and Funakoshi was one of the people on it. In it there is historical footage of people training in karate doing basic techniques or line drills marching up and down the floor in loin cloths.

Also looking at the picture this could have been taken when Funakoshi was teaching in Japan in the universities. The wide pants look like hakama which are also used in Aikido and other Japanese martial arts. I think the gi as a uniform came into karate practice after being adopted from Judo, same as the belt system.

I have seen pictures of Funakoshi wearing the hakama teaching and the gi in pictures showing moves of kata etc. etc. in his books. But I believe these were all taken after he went to Japan and he just adopted that kind of dress and life style.

Mark

 

[Mark Lynn]

He doesnt get much more specific, only to say that in his time in Okinawa there were really only two meaningful distinctions in style...heavy and light.

And that a good teacher would not teach ONE style for all body types.

Does it say that a good teacher would not only teach ONE style for all body types? Or is that what you are believing him to be saying? I'm not trying to pick a fight or an argument here, but Funakoshi did later on have his sons learn kata from both systems to add to his system of Shotokan.

I believe that as more people learned karate the two styles based on body mass or bone density, thick boned etc. etc. fell out of practice. I believed down line teachers started adapting the principles of the systems and adapted them to their knowledge base and made it to where the systems were able to be used by the general masses and not just certain body types. Thus the spreading of karate the world over and the explosion of different systems and styles of karate.

 

[Mark Lynn]

Interesting to note also that doesnt refer to his tradition as an ART, but rather a weapon system.

In other words he considered hands and feet as weapons you must learn to use, just as you would learn to use a sword or staff.

Well they did consider it an system of self defense first, art for self improvement came later on.

There is an interesting book "The secrets of Shotokan Karate" (I believe that's the name) where the authors puts forth the idea that originally the systems that were taught to Funakoshi's teachers were the body guard skills for the Okinawan King. However in time it was passed on as a form of civilian self defense skills, later watered down even more to be taught as a form of exercise to school kids (for health and social education).

The whole one punch/one kill mentality I believe came from the Japanese influence more so than the original art based on self defense related skills. Either way you harden your hands, feet, and will through hard training. Thus making them a weapon.

Speaking of the staff, in the photo two of the young men are holding staffs, that along with the amount of people pictured, the wide pants or hakamas, leads me to believe this was taken when he was in Japan and not of his students in Okinawa.

Submitted with respect
Mark

 

[Aiki Lee]

So is the question whether what is taught be different depending on the students' body size?

Not neccessarily. While I do believe there are some martial arts more suited to people of a specific size *cough* sumo *cough* Cough* I think it is important to study all aspects of the martial arts. In a fight the student should resort to the skills that he has learned that are easiest for him to perform. So where some people of a certain body type may be more prone to grappling and another more prone to striking both should be taught equally to everyone IMO. By giving a student the whole tool box he or she can pick which ones work best for that particular situation.

 

[Telfer]

Or is that what you are believing him to be saying?

Its a perfectly valid question Boar. Thats how martial arts and religions become distorted relative to their origins...in the same way that y'all remember how you used to play Telephone as a kid.

Everybody sits around in a circle and repeats a sentence to their neighbour, on down the line until its ends up all fuzzy and different.

Now I didnt buy the book so I havent reproduced the exact words, but if I told you what was implied is accurate you really have no more reason to believe me than the first time I wrote it...so you'll have to pick up a copy and decide for yourself I guess.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Today I was in a bookstore flipping through an english translation of Gichin Funakoshi's first book 'To-Te Jitsu' published in 1922.

http://www.amazon.com/te-Jitsu-Gichin-Funakoshi/dp/0920129226

This was interesting because he notes in the intro that originally there were only two styles based on body mass.

Heavy (thick-boned) students would be best suited for Shorei-Ryu while lighter students would benefit from Shaolin-Ryu.

I've never heard of this in any modern book...but it makes perfect sense!

Lets hear your thoughts on the history...and do you agree that modern teachers should teach different Karate styles based on the students body weight???

Not JMA but a student not getting trained based on body type was not all that uncommon in the old days of CMA. There were/are views that certain styles are best suited for certain body types

 

[Telfer]

There were/are views that certain styles are best suited for certain body types

Yes, it makes perfect sense for different heights as well as weight.

But today MA is more of a business where it wouldnt be economical to make too many divisions.

 

[punisher73]

Funakoshi made a lot of generalizations that were not true back then and they are not true now regarding karate styles. In Funakoshi's day there were Shuri, Naha, and Tomari. He tried to generalize the characteristics of those styles but there was disagreement amongst his piers back then of how he broke things down.

As Xue Sheng pointed out, this was done in CMA's as well. People will classify the northern styles and southern styles saying that the terrain was better and people were taller in northern China so they have more acrobatic moves and higher kicks. Whereas, southern china was more rocky and the people resorted to deeper stances, and powerful techniques etc.

Back to Kara-te. If you look at certain katas from Naha-te based styles (Goju-Ryu) you will find characteristics of what Shuri-te styles claim and vice versa. There are some styles of karate (Shito-Ryu, Isshin-Ryu come to mind) that are a blend of both the Naha-te and Tomari/Shuri-te branches. I think it had to do more with my way is better (ie: Naha-te stylists are brutes) than any real differences.