Karate history

ahmad abou taleb

White Belt
Joined
Jun 15, 2017
Messages
17
Reaction score
2
Location
Lebanon
url


Karate (空手) (English /kəˈrɑːtiː/) is a martial art developed on the Ryukyu Islands in what is now Okinawa, Japan. It developed from the indigenous martial arts of Ryukyu Islands (called te (手)) under the influence of Chinese martial arts, particularly Fujian White Crane.

Karate is now predominantly a striking art using punching, kicking, knee strikes, elbow strikes and open hand techniques such as knife-hands, spear-hands, and palm-heel strikes. Historically and in some modern styles grappling, throws, joint locks, restraints, and vital point strikes are also taught.
[5:46 AM, 6/15/2017] Me: A karate practitioner is called a karateka (空手家).

Karate developed in the Ryukyu Kingdom. It was brought to the Japanese mainland in the early 20th century during a time of cultural exchanges between the Japanese and the Chinese. It was systematically taught in Japan after the Taisho era.

In 1922 the Japanese Ministry of Education invited Gichin Funakoshi to Tokyo to give a karate demonstration.

In 1924 Keio University established the first university karate club in mainland Japan and by 1932, major Japanese universities had karate clubs. In this era of escalating Japanese militarism, the name was changed from 唐手 ("Chinese hand" or "Tang hand") to 空手 ("empty hand") – both of which are pronounced karate – to indicate that the Japanese wished to develop the combat form in Japanese style.

After World War II, Okinawa became an important United States military site and karate became popular among servicemen stationed there. 

The martial arts movies of the 1960s and 1970s served to greatly increase the popularity of martial arts around the world, and in English, the word karate began to be used in a generic way to refer to all striking-based Oriental martial arts.

Karate schools began appearing across the world, catering to those with casual interest as well as those seeking a deeper study of the art.
 
Oh and I may sound sarcastic here, why are you posting pieces from somewhere else? I have been a karateka for decades, why would I need to read this now? Is there something I'm missing in your cutting and pasting these posts? Most people on here are very experienced martial artists, I don't understand why you are posting this and not commenting so we can discuss whatever it is you want to say.
 
I will wholeheartedly disagree with the thought that grappling was not incorporated in karate...it is an integral part...if you know what you are looking at and for.
 
I will wholeheartedly disagree with the thought that grappling was not incorporated in karate...it is an integral part...if you know what you are looking at and for.

It certainly is in Wado Ryu. I don't know about other styles of karate because I've only done Wado.
 
It is in all of them. Whether one recognizes it or not does not negate that ALL have equal weapons, percussion, and grappling.

It certainly is in Wado Ryu. I don't know about other styles of karate because I've only done Wado.
 
It is in all of them. Whether one recognizes it or not does not negate that ALL have equal weapons, percussion, and grappling.

Do you mean weapons as in actual physical ones or weapons as in having an arsenal of techniques to use? Not sure what you mean by 'percussion' either.
 
I am talking about actual weapons. Percussion...striking.

Do you mean weapons as in actual physical ones or weapons as in having an arsenal of techniques to use? Not sure what you mean by 'percussion' either.
 
I will wholeheartedly disagree with the thought that grappling was not incorporated in karate...it is an integral part...if you know what you are looking at and for.
I will disagree with your premise.
But first you will need to define grappling.
I do hope you understand that "karate" is a general term, you might want to reel that in a bit and be more specific before you make that statement.
 
You can disagree, and simply ignore the truth. What do you mean by "reel that in a bit". I think the statement is pretty specific.

What is grappling? Grappling is simply sustained contact.

Weaponry / percussion / grappling are an intrinsic equally proportionate part of martial studies.

I will disagree with your premise.
But first you will need to define grappling.
I do hope you understand that "karate" is a general term, you might want to reel that in a bit and be more specific before you make that statement.
 
Grappling is simply sustained contact.

I'm not following that, are you saying that sparring/fighting using strikes is grappling because it can be sustained contact? I also don't understand why you keep saying 'percussion', the definition may be 'striking one object with another' but it's not something I've heard used in martial arts because it doesn't accurately describe what we do.

Weaponry / percussion / grappling are an intrinsic equally proportionate part of martial studies.

This has me puzzled, are we talking about 'martial studies' or 'karate' here because I know not all karate styles use weapons.
 
If you employ sustained contact...for example you grab someone, then percuss (strike), then you are using grappling and percussion.

Just because you have not heard it, doesn't mean it's not the appropriate term. Why does it not describe what "we" do?

Are you saying that styles of karate are not martial studies. I am saying that included in martial studies, is karate...and all martial studies include weaponry, percussion, and grappling. Just because they are not "used' or "taught" or whatever defect or hole there is in the transmission, does not mean it's not there.

When you learn history in kindergarten, does the stuff you learn when you do PhD studies not true because you did not learn it in kindergarten?

I'm not following that, are you saying that sparring/fighting using strikes is grappling because it can be sustained contact? I also don't understand why you keep saying 'percussion', the definition may be 'striking one object with another' but it's not something I've heard used in martial arts because it doesn't accurately describe what we do.



This has me puzzled, are we talking about 'martial studies' or 'karate' here because I know not all karate styles use weapons.
 
In fact, name a "karate" style that does not have weapons.


If you employ sustained contact...for example you grab someone, then percuss (strike), then you are using grappling and percussion.

Just because you have not heard it, doesn't mean it's not the appropriate term. Why does it not describe what "we" do?

Are you saying that styles of karate are not martial studies. I am saying that included in martial studies, is karate...and all martial studies include weaponry, percussion, and grappling. Just because they are not "used' or "taught" or whatever defect or hole there is in the transmission, does not mean it's not there.

When you learn history in kindergarten, does the stuff you learn when you do PhD studies not true because you did not learn it in kindergarten?
 
then percuss (strike),

Incorrect. 'percuss' is a medical term not one used in martial arts.
'To percuss' gently tap (a part of the body) with a finger or an instrument as part of a diagnosis:
"the bladder was percussed"

I imagine if I haven't heard it being used in many decades of doing martial arts it isn't used very much in fact at all.

Are you saying that styles of karate are not martial studies. I am saying that included in martial studies, is karate...and all martial studies include weaponry, percussion, and grappling. Just because they are not "used' or "taught" or whatever defect or hole there is in the transmission, does not mean it's not there.

When you learn history in kindergarten, does the stuff you learn when you do PhD studies not true because you did not learn it in kindergarten?

You are getting tied up in knots here and are unintelligible, I can't answer because you seem to have ideas about karate that I don't think are actually true.

In fact, name a "karate" style that does not have weapons.

I already have, Wado Ryu and I think you'll find there are others.
 
If you employ sustained contact...for example you grab someone, then percuss (strike), then you are using grappling and percussion.

Just because you have not heard it, doesn't mean it's not the appropriate term. Why does it not describe what "we" do?

Are you saying that styles of karate are not martial studies. I am saying that included in martial studies, is karate...and all martial studies include weaponry, percussion, and grappling. Just because they are not "used' or "taught" or whatever defect or hole there is in the transmission, does not mean it's not there.

When you learn history in kindergarten, does the stuff you learn when you do PhD studies not true because you did not learn it in kindergarten?
Not quoting the line since on my phone, but you generalized it to all martial studies. I don't know about karate, but not all martial studies have all 3 aspects. Boxing only has striking, possibly grappling if you count the brief clinch, no weapons. Olympic fencing (different than HEMA) only does weaponry. Both are martial in nature and you study them.
 
in karate, we won't use any kind of weapon! karate mean the empty hand! where we learn how to defend ourselves without using any kind of weapon! our hand's legs and ankles are our weapons!Also in Kyokushin karate we won't use any kind of grappling,on the other hand in shotokan we use grapling , and i don't have any idea about the other karate styles
 
in karate, we won't use any kind of weapon! karate mean the empty hand! where we learn how to defend ourselves without using any kind of weapon! our hand's legs and ankles are our weapons!Also in Kyokushin karate we won't use any kind of grappling,on the other hand in shotokan we use grapling , and i don't have any idea about the other karate styles
No, in YOUR karate, you don't use weapons. In some styles of karate, weapons are indeed included, and (eventual) training with them is an essential part of the syllabus.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
Weaponry / percussion / grappling are an intrinsic equally proportionate part of martial studies.
Not really. Many styles do not have weapons in any significant measure. In another group, the weapons are significant in the training, but some are largely for training movement (not for actual weapons use).

The key issue I have is the "intrinsic equally proportionate" statement. There are plenty of areas where this is demonstrably inaccurate.
 

Latest Discussions

Back
Top