Was Funakoshi Gichin a "sell out"?

isshinryuronin

2nd Black Belt
Joined
Feb 28, 2019
Messages
768
Reaction score
587
Location
Las Vegas
Funakoshi, "The father of modern karate", was a traditional Okinawan master who studied with Itosu Anko in the "old ways" of toude/todi. His time predates the wearing of a gi and even the name "karate", itself. It was his efforts in popularizing this art that are responsible for all of us practicing and treasuring it today, 100 years later. But at what cost?

It was Funakoshi who transformed the art by introducing it to the public schools in Okinawa, and later, Japan. To do this, as most of us know, he simplified the kata, removed many of the truly dangerous techniques, and even changed the names from the native Okinawan language (Hogan or Uchinaaguchi) to Japanese. Karate became something different and was sent on a new trajectory.

It was this "watering down" of the art for the masses that eventually allowed it to reach millions. But, at the same time, what was passed on was a shadow of the original. It is only since this new millennium, what was lost is gradually being rediscovered thanks to a realization that there is more to karate than we thought.

Did Funakoshi sell out the Okinawan legacy in order to popularize it and make it more acceptable to Japanese sensibilities?
 

O'Malley

Blue Belt
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
292
Reaction score
140
This resonates with me. Aikido also has a similar history. Its founder, Morihei Ueshiba, was by all accounts the best martial artist in Japan. His strength attracted many talented martial artists as he rose to fame. But the person who popularised the art worldwide was his son, Kisshomaru Ueshiba. He did his best to create a viable aikido organisation and sent teachers abroad, among which his father's students, to spread aikido.

Yet, Morihei's art was very esoteric. He talked about "standing on the floating bridge of heaven" as the foundation for aiki, a harmony of energies within the body. This was actually a technical description but no one had the necessary knowledge to properly decipher it: it was a classic Chinese concept coated in Oomoto-kyo terminology, on which he put his personal spin. The art required a lot of severe ascetic solo training and the techniques were hard.

Because of this, Kisshomaru simplified aikido. He took away the esoteric language and changed the form and concepts behind the techniques. It is because of Kisshomaru that most aikidoka talk about "blending with the opponent's ki/attack". It is his doing if techniques look so circular. And, if aikido is seen as "the art of peace", it is because he thought that it was great marketing: the whole "peaceful martial art"/"we protect the opponent"/"we never attack first" thing is a gimmick to differentiate aikido from judo or karate.

Was Kisshomaru a sell out? I don't think so. While he definitely created something different, he managed to spread the art to an extent that his father would probably never have reached. He allowed people to practice a simple, cooperative martial art that one can learn in a couple of years. Everybody can learn it, no matter their physical condition. And it looks nice as well.
The price to pay, for those of us interested in Morihei's ways, is a continuous - and perhaps impossible - struggle to revive old school aikido, even in the lineages not affected by Kisshomaru.

I'll conclude with some short videos. The first one shows the founder. The next two show lineages independent from Kisshomaru, while the last one features Kisshomaru's grandson, the future head of the Aikikai. I hope this brings a useful perspective to your interrogations.

 
Last edited:

Rat

Master Black Belt
Joined
Jul 11, 2018
Messages
1,498
Reaction score
181
Would he have had a choice for the changing the names to Japanese? I didnt think what ever the body that regulated martial arts in the 1900's would have recognised it with Okinawan. (i dont know its name)

That just doesnt seem like something that you can soley pin on him, given that body probbly wouldn thave recognised it without adjustment, like they also removed the grappling because it would have competed with judo and jujutsu.
 

_Simon_

Senior Master
Joined
Jan 3, 2018
Messages
3,259
Reaction score
1,549
Location
Australia
Very interesting thoughts @isshinryuronin!

Not much to add, but yeah whilst true that he may have removed aspects, watered things down etc, it's quite possible that not one of us would be practicing karate if he didn't do that. All compleeeetely hypothetical of course haha, who knows how things would have progressed!

And I wonder how many things have been watered down, but as a result, resulted in its mass spread? And whether that was beneficial, or detrimental to the art/subject?

I love the direction and evolution karate has taken, and more importantly I feel its division into having different appeals (sport, self-defence, "way") may be a good thing, and perhaps it's up to the individual as to what aspect of karate we wish to focus on or delve into.

It's interesting... I've seen the effects of what a short-term watering down does to a martial art, but long term you see what people it brings, and then a portion of those want to delve into it more.

Curious what others think :)
 

wab25

3rd Black Belt
Joined
Sep 22, 2017
Messages
905
Reaction score
691
Funakoshi did make changes to the art, in order to get it to Japan and to make it popular. However, he also understood the changes he made and why. He did teach and explain the more realistic / dangerous parts. He did show where they are in the Shotokan kata. (I don't know if he got 100% of the old ways and applications in there... but he got a lot of them in there) I believe that his hope was that if more people were able to train, more people would look deeper, and find the older original teachings... which was preferable to the arts dying out.

The issue is that those who came after Funakoshi watered it down significantly more. Today, if you go down to a random Shotokan school, with a million karate competition trophies in the window... and suggest that gedan barai is a throw or that age uke is an arm break / dislocation... they will giggle at you and shrug it off. If they allow you to demonstrate those applications, they will tell you that you are stretching to far away from the kata, or the original intent. At best, they will say its possible, but definitely outside the norm. What is interesting is that those applications, gedan barai as a throw and age uke as an arm break / dislocation... come from Funakoshi himself. If you read Funakoshi's own description of the Shotokan kata, and of the different techniques... he describes them much closer to the original arts and applications.

Somewhere between Funakoshi and what we have today, many things got lost. I think much came from people not understanding and many times being too afraid to admit they don't understand... so they take their best guess, and we take it as gospel. Yes, "uke" could mean "block." Yes, this "block" would be blocking down. So, what comes up that you would want to block? Oh... a kick. This "block" is in the middle... so is this punch... therefore, mid "block" blocks mid punch... Sometimes it works out, even if its not the most efficient way to do the task. Other times, it breaks your arm.

In order to more fully understand what Funakoshi put together, we need to better understand what he created... not what many other people interpreted, in the telephone game manner, from what he taught. The biggest key here is humility. You have to accept the possibility that you do not yet have the right answer. Your instructor / master might not have the right answer. Only then will you be able to go back and research, to see what was in Funakoshi's art. Until we understand the art that Funakoshi created, we won't be able to truly know how much he may have watered it down, or sold out or whatever.

The first step is to realize and accept the possibility, that you might not be right, and that even your instructor / master might have it wrong. If you and your instructor / master are the type that cannot be wrong... well, you are kind of stuck. If you can accept the possibility of being wrong... then you have the opportunity to start researching and studying and learning.
 

Flying Crane

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Sep 21, 2005
Messages
13,506
Reaction score
2,936
Location
San Francisco
This resonates with me. Aikido also has a similar history. Its founder, Morihei Ueshiba, was by all accounts the best martial artist in Japan. His strength attracted many talented martial artists as he rose to fame. But the person who popularised the art worldwide was his son, Kisshomaru Ueshiba. He did his best to create a viable aikido organisation and sent teachers abroad, among which his father's students, to spread aikido.

Yet, Morihei's art was very esoteric. He talked about "standing on the floating bridge of heaven" as the foundation for aiki, a harmony of energies within the body. This was actually a technical description but no one had the necessary knowledge to properly decipher it: it was a classic Chinese concept coated in Oomoto-kyo terminology, on which he put his personal spin. The art required a lot of severe ascetic solo training and the techniques were hard.

Because of this, Kisshomaru simplified aikido. He took away the esoteric language and changed the form and concepts behind the techniques. It is because of Kisshomaru that most aikidoka talk about "blending with the opponent's ki/attack". It is his doing if techniques look so circular. And, if aikido is seen as "the art of peace", it is because he thought that it was great marketing: the whole "peaceful martial art"/"we protect the opponent"/"we never attack first" thing is a gimmick to differentiate aikido from judo or karate.

Was Kisshomaru a sell out? I don't think so. While he definitely created something different, he managed to spread the art to an extent that his father would probably never have reached. He allowed people to practice a simple, cooperative martial art that one can learn in a couple of years. Everybody can learn it, no matter their physical condition. And it looks nice as well.
The price to pay, for those of us interested in Morihei's ways, is a continuous - and perhaps impossible - struggle to revive old school aikido, even in the lineages not affected by Kisshomaru.

I'll conclude with some short videos. The first one shows the founder. The next two show lineages independent from Kisshomaru, while the last one features Kisshomaru's grandson, the future head of the Aikikai. I hope this brings a useful perspective to your interrogations.

Videos of the Founder are always intensely interesting to watch.
 
OP
I

isshinryuronin

2nd Black Belt
Joined
Feb 28, 2019
Messages
768
Reaction score
587
Location
Las Vegas
I love the direction and evolution karate has taken, and more importantly I feel its division into having different appeals (sport, self-defence, "way") may be a good thing, and perhaps it's up to the individual as to what aspect of karate we wish to focus on or delve into.
Yes, one important point from karate's expansion into the masses is that the masses are not homogeneous. Just like if 10 very different people look at a painting, they will like it and interpret it in different ways. So, some see karate as an art or way, a sport, or a self-defense system. Maybe a blend of these and other facets. If this evolutionary trend continues, will karate diverge into 3 or 4 different entities to the point we will need to have different names for each? Or can they co-exist under the same umbrella?

Several masters during the 1930's (some of whom aided in the popularization of karate) lamented the new emphasis of sport competition, even back then, and the lack of heart in many of the ever increasing number of practitioners, so this discussion is nothing new. I don't know if one can put a label of "good" or "bad" to the changes in the art (except for crap instructors.) Maybe it's just natural evolution and it will take us wherever it goes.

Part of it may go full circle and lead us back to the "original" Okinawan toude style of pre-1920. Other parts may continue to diverge in other, hopefully beneficial, ways.
I started this thread with the idea of bringing karate's past, present and future together to be seen as a whole and get a better grip on my own views, and for others to do the same. I have mixed feelings about the whole thing from an intellectual POV. So, I'll stop thinking about it and do my MA the way I feel like.
 
OP
I

isshinryuronin

2nd Black Belt
Joined
Feb 28, 2019
Messages
768
Reaction score
587
Location
Las Vegas
Funakoshi did make changes to the art, in order to get it to Japan and to make it popular. However, he also understood the changes he made and why. He did teach and explain the more realistic / dangerous parts. He did show where they are in the Shotokan kata. (I don't know if he got 100% of the old ways and applications in there... but he got a lot of them in there) I believe that his hope was that if more people were able to train, more people would look deeper, and find the older original teachings... which was preferable to the arts dying out.

Agreed. I think this is where his mindset was, but maybe he overestimated his hope in people. Plus, people don't know what they don't know. But in recent years this is finally changing (thanks to the discovery and translations of historical writings on karate) and we are starting to really appreciate what karate was and can be.
 

_Simon_

Senior Master
Joined
Jan 3, 2018
Messages
3,259
Reaction score
1,549
Location
Australia
Yes, one important point from karate's expansion into the masses is that the masses are not homogeneous. Just like if 10 very different people look at a painting, they will like it and interpret it in different ways. So, some see karate as an art or way, a sport, or a self-defense system. Maybe a blend of these and other facets. If this evolutionary trend continues, will karate diverge into 3 or 4 different entities to the point we will need to have different names for each? Or can they co-exist under the same umbrella?

Several masters during the 1930's (some of whom aided in the popularization of karate) lamented the new emphasis of sport competition, even back then, and the lack of heart in many of the ever increasing number of practitioners, so this discussion is nothing new. I don't know if one can put a label of "good" or "bad" to the changes in the art (except for crap instructors.) Maybe it's just natural evolution and it will take us wherever it goes.

Part of it may go full circle and lead us back to the "original" Okinawan toude style of pre-1920. Other parts may continue to diverge in other, hopefully beneficial, ways.
I started this thread with the idea of bringing karate's past, present and future together to be seen as a whole and get a better grip on my own views, and for others to do the same. I have mixed feelings about the whole thing from an intellectual POV. So, I'll stop thinking about it and do my MA the way I feel like.

Well said :)

And yeah I guess it's up to the individual practitioners as to their interest levels, and if curious enough want go deeper. Some will want surface level, others will sense there's more to it all and look further into it.

But good point at the end there too, and it helps me assess it as a whole and see what it means for me to, and how I want to proceed.
 

O'Malley

Blue Belt
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
292
Reaction score
140
Yes, one important point from karate's expansion into the masses is that the masses are not homogeneous. Just like if 10 very different people look at a painting, they will like it and interpret it in different ways. So, some see karate as an art or way, a sport, or a self-defense system. Maybe a blend of these and other facets. If this evolutionary trend continues, will karate diverge into 3 or 4 different entities to the point we will need to have different names for each? Or can they co-exist under the same umbrella?

Several masters during the 1930's (some of whom aided in the popularization of karate) lamented the new emphasis of sport competition, even back then, and the lack of heart in many of the ever increasing number of practitioners, so this discussion is nothing new. I don't know if one can put a label of "good" or "bad" to the changes in the art (except for crap instructors.) Maybe it's just natural evolution and it will take us wherever it goes.

Part of it may go full circle and lead us back to the "original" Okinawan toude style of pre-1920. Other parts may continue to diverge in other, hopefully beneficial, ways.
I started this thread with the idea of bringing karate's past, present and future together to be seen as a whole and get a better grip on my own views, and for others to do the same. I have mixed feelings about the whole thing from an intellectual POV. So, I'll stop thinking about it and do my MA the way I feel like.

Maybe one can see all the variations as a sign of the art's richness. It allows one to pick and choose from many "flavors" of karate in order to build one's own. For example, if you're interested in self defense, learning the traditional toude would be useful but doing sports karate may teach you about timing, footwork and speed in a safe environment. Plus, it would pit you against trained fit opponents. Likewise, by working with a kata-oriented teacher, you may learn about proprioception in a way that you can then apply to your whole technique. As long as you stay true to the art's principles (e.g. you don't make up BS techniques), it's good IMO.
 

TaiChiTJ

Brown Belt
Joined
Feb 18, 2005
Messages
490
Reaction score
47
Funakoshi, "The father of modern karate", was a traditional Okinawan master who studied with Itosu Anko in the "old ways" of toude/todi. His time predates the wearing of a gi and even the name "karate", itself. It was his efforts in popularizing this art that are responsible for all of us practicing and treasuring it today, 100 years later. But at what cost?

It was Funakoshi who transformed the art by introducing it to the public schools in Okinawa, and later, Japan. To do this, as most of us know, he simplified the kata, removed many of the truly dangerous techniques, and even changed the names from the native Okinawan language (Hogan or Uchinaaguchi) to Japanese. Karate became something different and was sent on a new trajectory.

It was this "watering down" of the art for the masses that eventually allowed it to reach millions. But, at the same time, what was passed on was a shadow of the original. It is only since this new millennium, what was lost is gradually being rediscovered thanks to a realization that there is more to karate than we thought.

Did Funakoshi sell out the Okinawan legacy in order to popularize it and make it more acceptable to Japanese sensibilities?

i found the following title very helpful in researching the evolution of karate into modern times :

Hidden Karate: The True Bunkai For Heian Katas And Naihanchi
 

Acronym

Master of Arts
Joined
Jun 26, 2020
Messages
1,773
Reaction score
41
Very interesting thoughts @isshinryuronin!

Not much to add, but yeah whilst true that he may have removed aspects, watered things down etc, it's quite possible that not one of us would be practicing karate if he didn't do that. All compleeeetely hypothetical of course haha, who knows how things would have progressed!

And I wonder how many things have been watered down, but as a result, resulted in its mass spread? And whether that was beneficial, or detrimental to the art/subject?

I love the direction and evolution karate has taken, and more importantly I feel its division into having different appeals (sport, self-defence, "way") may be a good thing, and perhaps it's up to the individual as to what aspect of karate we wish to focus on or delve into.

It's interesting... I've seen the effects of what a short-term watering down does to a martial art, but long term you see what people it brings, and then a portion of those want to delve into it more.

Curious what others think :)

I think he made the Katas flashier and some of the mechanics more "to the point". If you watch old Okinawa mechanics it looks like salsa mechanics when they punch, and very upright. Better or worse, it's a very plausible alternative..

But It is also quite possible that Funakoshi removed some of the more violent elements in the grappling.
 

Patience

White Belt
Joined
Jul 2, 2020
Messages
15
Reaction score
6
Maybe one can see all the variations as a sign of the art's richness. It allows one to pick and choose from many "flavors" of karate in order to build one's own. For example, if you're interested in self defense, learning the traditional toude would be useful but doing sports karate may teach you about timing, footwork and speed in a safe environment. Plus, it would pit you against trained fit opponents. Likewise, by working with a kata-oriented teacher, you may learn about proprioception in a way that you can then apply to your whole technique. As long as you stay true to the art's principles (e.g. you don't make up BS techniques), it's good IMO.

I prefer a traditional setting where kata and their bunkai are emphasized. But I started in a sport setting, and there are many, many benefits of free sparring. The ultimate goal of any MA should be competence at self defence (jmo), but all the "flavors" of MA have something beneficial to offer.
 

tigercrane

Yellow Belt
Joined
Jul 17, 2015
Messages
42
Reaction score
14
No one truly knows what was on his mind. I have yet to read about his religious or spiritual inclinations. Perhaps he thought Karate would transcend all the martial aspects and would lead to a betterment of humankind, whoever knows? Didn't he also lay out some 20 rules for his students on how to become better human beings? He must have practiced or leaned towards Buddsim or something like that. Besides, at that time Japan was relatively peaceful and there were no more Shoguns to fight each other, hence no need to study lethal applications by the masses. As in saying, "Hard times create strong men, Strong men create good times, Good times create weak men, Weak men create hard times". Funakoshi must have been that "Strong Man" creating the good times...
 

Graywalker

Purple Belt
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
367
Reaction score
111
In a book, that I purchased written by Toyama Kanken, has the transcript of the meeting by the early okinawan masters. They discuss the name and several other topics concerning the spreading of Karate.
 

Hanshi

Green Belt
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
141
Reaction score
87
Location
Virginia
Unfortunately, this "evolution" extended to other martial arts as well. I spent a lot of time training in "sport" dojo. In one, that I enjoyed, I was basically forbidden to teach any old, rough techniques used in combat which, to my way of thinking, were vitally important to make the art "martial" and effective. It was obvious, and sad, that so many schools teach only "art" or "sport". I made many dear friends but even the senior dans would NOT be able to protect themselves in real world scenarios. Most of my training has been very street oriented with tough training and demands from the sensei. And I'm not talking about brawling; I'm referring to kata training, drills and sparring but with a knowledge of dangerous techniques/strategies that can't be fully used (person to person) in the dojo. The aikido I practiced was considered more of a hard style and more "aiki-jujutsu" than the more common and softer styles. People turn to martial arts for a wide array of reasons, and it's not always "fight training". At my last dojo the owner/grandmaster frequently allowed me to teach these things that are the flip side of the sporting martial arts. It worried me that so many black belts never develop that mindset one needs to react instantly when grabbed from behind, for instance. Even getting a strong KIAI from many of them was ultimately impossible. So mental preparation is the core, in my opinion, and not simply the technique.
 
OP
I

isshinryuronin

2nd Black Belt
Joined
Feb 28, 2019
Messages
768
Reaction score
587
Location
Las Vegas
In a book, that I purchased written by Toyama Kanken, has the transcript of the meeting by the early okinawan masters. They discuss the name and several other topics concerning the spreading of Karate.
I have not read this book (sounds great), but have read of various meetings of the early Okinawan masters from other sources. Several groups were formed and some of the membership changed over the years. The topics of these meetings included the following:

1. Combining the various styles into a more standardized generic form. (1930's) While the old masters knew and cross trained with each other, it is hard to give up traditions, as well as control. Anyway, the coming of World War II put a halt to that goal. Unification of styles was never seriously taken up again.

2. In about that same time frame, talk began regarding standardizing testing by committee composed of masters of various styles (karate belt colors were not fully developed at first, promotion being recognized, sort of, as teacher, sr. teacher, expert teacher and master teacher. If a Goju, Shorin, and Tomari master all agreed you were an expert instructor, there was no question regarding your credentials. This peer recognition did succeed and more or less still lives on in Okinawa. There are few phony masters there, unlike in the USA.

3. A few years earlier than the above meeting, I believe, the most intriguing meeting is said to have taken place (can you say "conspiracy theory"?) The topic of this one supposedly was how much of the true, secret, Okinawan fighting style and hidden kata bunkai should be shared with the Japanese. Only 50 years earlier, Okinawa was the Ryukyu Kingdom under King Sho, although had been subjugated and abused by the Satsuma clan for a long time and had no love of the Japanese.

Sounds like the making of a great movie. These committee members were NOT pencil pushers or politicians, but mostly proven fighting masters of respected Okinawan Samurai lineage. Karate as we know it today is due in large part to these early meetings. Or, maybe they just sat down to discuss what kind of pizza to order before the start of the Sumo tournament.
 

Buka

Sr. Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
11,200
Reaction score
7,500
Location
Maui
Funakoshi could have hung with us. I'll bet you he would have had fun, too.

Now don't go getting all "ancient master" on me, it's meant as respect.
 

Graywalker

Purple Belt
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
367
Reaction score
111
I have not read this book (sounds great), but have read of various meetings of the early Okinawan masters from other sources. Several groups were formed and some of the membership changed over the years. The topics of these meetings included the following:

1. Combining the various styles into a more standardized generic form. (1930's) While the old masters knew and cross trained with each other, it is hard to give up traditions, as well as control. Anyway, the coming of World War II put a halt to that goal. Unification of styles was never seriously taken up again.

2. In about that same time frame, talk began regarding standardizing testing by committee composed of masters of various styles (karate belt colors were not fully developed at first, promotion being recognized, sort of, as teacher, sr. teacher, expert teacher and master teacher. If a Goju, Shorin, and Tomari master all agreed you were an expert instructor, there was no question regarding your credentials. This peer recognition did succeed and more or less still lives on in Okinawa. There are few phony masters there, unlike in the USA.

3. A few years earlier than the above meeting, I believe, the most intriguing meeting is said to have taken place (can you say "conspiracy theory"?) The topic of this one supposedly was how much of the true, secret, Okinawan fighting style and hidden kata bunkai should be shared with the Japanese. Only 50 years earlier, Okinawa was the Ryukyu Kingdom under King Sho, although had been subjugated and abused by the Satsuma clan for a long time and had no love of the Japanese.

Sounds like the making of a great movie. These committee members were NOT pencil pushers or politicians, but mostly proven fighting masters of respected Okinawan Samurai lineage. Karate as we know it today is due in large part to these early meetings. Or, maybe they just sat down to discuss what kind of pizza to order before the start of the Sumo tournament.
Ni
I have not read this book (sounds great), but have read of various meetings of the early Okinawan masters from other sources. Several groups were formed and some of the membership changed over the years. The topics of these meetings included the following:

1. Combining the various styles into a more standardized generic form. (1930's) While the old masters knew and cross trained with each other, it is hard to give up traditions, as well as control. Anyway, the coming of World War II put a halt to that goal. Unification of styles was never seriously taken up again.

2. In about that same time frame, talk began regarding standardizing testing by committee composed of masters of various styles (karate belt colors were not fully developed at first, promotion being recognized, sort of, as teacher, sr. teacher, expert teacher and master teacher. If a Goju, Shorin, and Tomari master all agreed you were an expert instructor, there was no question regarding your credentials. This peer recognition did succeed and more or less still lives on in Okinawa. There are few phony masters there, unlike in the USA.

3. A few years earlier than the above meeting, I believe, the most intriguing meeting is said to have taken place (can you say "conspiracy theory"?) The topic of this one supposedly was how much of the true, secret, Okinawan fighting style and hidden kata bunkai should be shared with the Japanese. Only 50 years earlier, Okinawa was the Ryukyu Kingdom under King Sho, although had been subjugated and abused by the Satsuma clan for a long time and had no love of the Japanese.

Sounds like the making of a great movie. These committee members were NOT pencil pushers or politicians, but mostly proven fighting masters of respected Okinawan Samurai lineage. Karate as we know it today is due in large part to these early meetings. Or, maybe they just sat down to discuss what kind of pizza to order before the start of the Sumo tournament.
You should purchase the book, it has the minutes for the 1936 meeting by those old instructors.
 

Steve

Mostly Harmless
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
18,276
Reaction score
3,893
Location
Covington, WA
What if, instead of selling out, the masters were just the last instructors in a long line of instructors who actually used what they were taught? There is a point where you can't teach someone anything more until they have accumulated enough experience to understand more.

I think "selling out" is looking at this the wrong way around. The only way you can pass a system of any kind down more or less intact from generation to generation of students who become teachers is by having a continuous line of application. At a certain point, for someone to be an expert in anything, experience drives the questions, and the emphasis moves from overt instruction to a kind of mentoring/troubleshooting phase. Said the other way, if you don't have the experience, you don't know what questions to ask.

Out of curiosity, I thought about someone like Lyoto Machida. He's a karate guy from a line of karate guys. He's also a BJJ black belt, and has effectively applied his fighting skills at the highest level of MMA. So, what makes someone like him different from most instructors? And what differences can we see in how he teaches? Was he taught this way by his father? Was his karate training influenced by his sumo or BJJ training? Vice versa?

Here's a video I found:

All that to say, I'm not a karateka. My rusty penny's worth is that they didn't sell out. I just think this is what happens when you teach something to folks who don't use the skills, or maybe don't use them in the same way. We see over and over that, when application is reintroduced into the training model, the skill level increases. The better the training, the shorter this period of time is. And when a person with real experience teaches other people who are gaining real experience, the system can be transmitted largely intact. Conversely, when a person with real experience teaches other people who do not gain real experience, the system breaks down very quickly.

The good news, though, is that reintroducing application into the system can pretty quickly address a lot of issues. However, the risk is that the longer the gap, the less likely the system will be "intact."

Edit: Rather than add another post, just editing to add this video of Machida, demonstrating several examples of technique in application:


how much of his ability to execute those techniques was a result of technical instruction and how much was a matter of experience?
 
Last edited:
Top