Jesse Endkamp - Why ALL Karate Styles Are FAKE

The kata comparisons are interesting to watch
 
Of course, the title of Jesse's clip is click bait, as I discussed in the Jesse/Uechi thread a couple of hours ago. Styles are not fake in the current sense, as he accurately presented the historical/cultural climate in which they were codified into what we have today.

But before this, prior to 1930, there were styles - of a different nature. They were more based on the individual: The way Kyan did it, the way Arigake did it or the way Juhatsu did it. It was little different than Ali's style being unique to the way he did it, as opposed to how Frazier or Foreman did it - three distinct styles of boxing - they just didn't have a formal name, other than referring to the fighters themselves.

The old katas were considered styles in their own right: The style of Wansu, or Kusanku or Chinto. The kata named after these masters reflected those individual's fighting style and methodology. Maybe that's why the old masters generally taught just three kata - It's difficult to master more than three styles.

IMO, there were two main styles: Shuri/Tomari and Naha. The former having been subject to a longer evolution and cross-mixing and the latter coming from China more recently and less modified by Okinawan te. There are some fundamental differences between them. But other than this, Jesse pointed out a major chunk of karate history.
 
Of course, the title of Jesse's clip is click bait, as I discussed in the Jesse/Uechi thread a couple of hours ago. Styles are not fake in the current sense, as he accurately presented the historical/cultural climate in which they were codified into what we have today.

But before this, prior to 1930, there were styles - of a different nature. They were more based on the individual: The way Kyan did it, the way Arigake did it or the way Juhatsu did it. It was little different than Ali's style being unique to the way he did it, as opposed to how Frazier or Foreman did it - three distinct styles of boxing - they just didn't have a formal name, other than referring to the fighters themselves.

The old katas were considered styles in their own right: The style of Wansu, or Kusanku or Chinto. The kata named after these masters reflected those individual's fighting style and methodology. Maybe that's why the old masters generally taught just three kata - It's difficult to master more than three styles.

IMO, there were two main styles: Shuri/Tomari and Naha. The former having been subject to a longer evolution and cross-mixing and the latter coming from China more recently and less modified by Okinawan te. There are some fundamental differences between them. But other than this, Jesse pointed out a major chunk of karate history.
I agree with what you said.

To me, it comes down to the fact that all styles were created by someone. There isn't any style that "fell from the sky". Each style has the strengths and weaknesses and experience of the founder and was designed for a specific environment to keep safe.

What may have been the "best" in responding to a certain time/place/environment may or may not carry over to another time/place/environment "as is" and may need to be tweaked or modified.

I think this is the crux of TMA's. Keeping an preserving a "tradition" for tradition and history's sake. But, at the same time, evolving to address the current needs of the individual and what they are most likely to face.
 
have not watched the video, but believe nothing is fake if you can walk away from a fight, and nothing is fake about walking away from a fallen opponent that can`t get up.
As @isshinryuronin said, the title is click bate. Jesse seems to like doing that. But just the same p, his videos tend to be rather good

It is not really calling karate fake, it is more to division of karate styles. Watch the video and you will understand
 
Another from Jesse on Karate


 

Latest Discussions

Back
Top