Posted by: Ed_Morris
The Great Karate Myth - 12/18/06 12:07 AM
ok, a friend was kind enough to loan me a copy of the text "The Great Karate Myth" by Nathan Johnson.
this review/commentary is in part a continuation of the thread started here:
http://www.fightingarts.com/ubbthreads/s...e=1&fpart=1
first, to be honest - I haven't read the book page by page as of yet. The reason I'm even giving preliminary comment now is because I did take the time to try and find reference in the book to specifics regarding the stated 'myth' and it's main basis of debunking it.
It was easy to find some answers to questions I had, but some answers were really difficult to find or non-exitent. but I'll present now, to let the answers to my questions draw out while I actually read the book thru. now arguments can be presented with page numbers. give me a page number to correct my preliminary thoughts.
surface observation: no footnotes, no citations....but lots of [annotation] - big warning. There was just a 'bibliography' of a relatively few well-known works. as a comparrison, good 5 page articles we read online have twice as many references. for a 400 page book...16 references doesn't cut it (and 2 of which were references to his own earlier works).
The main 'myth' (according to the book):
Thats the myth he sets out to debunk...or is it the one he tries to prove? also in the book, separate from the myth, are his weaponless interpretations of other select kata - Naihanchi and Tensho. no myth there, just interpretations, and not bad ones, but way too 'soft' IMO. It's like interpreting Karate kata with Wing Chun - not bad, but is it 'original'? His section titled "kobudo" is bizzare...it shows weaponless kata frames of what he calls 'Kobudo Sanchin'...which is indistinguishable from Uechi-Sanchin. so the 'kobudo' section of the book shows no weapons...hmmmm.
and btw, why is it weaponS ? with an "S" ...does that mean he interprets kata with anything other than sai? not mentioned.
The kata he chooses to focus on to go from weaponless to sai translation in the book are Uechi-Sanchin, Uechi Seisan, and Uechi Sanseiru.
His reasoning for choosing Sai as oppossed to say a Bo or Kama is not apparent...I couldn't find it. if someone knows, please inform the thread.
His reasoning for choosing these particular kata is unclear other than by eliminating kata which didn't have commonality with other styles, then further justifying the elimination process by dismissing kata that was apparently imported to Okinawa after Higaonna's death in 1915. Reasoning: Not clear where the kata came from or if it was significantly changed or not for purposes other than it's intended purpose. Example: All of Goju's kata Miyagi suppossedly learned in China after Higaonna's death - therefore they are dismissed from analysis.
so basically he's saying he doesn't interpret these Goju kata with weapons, because it's not clear where the kata came from.
He doesn't mention specifically (as I've not found yet) why Kingai, To'on, Shitoryu or any other Naha-te based versions of his selected kata are not used over the Uechi versions....other than using the well-know fact that Higaonna taught open hand for the opening sequences of Sanchin. (extrapolating from that, he concludes Seisan and Sanseiru must have also been open hand). I'm not sure if he's even seen To'on ryu or Kingai Ryu versions of kata....or even training in legitimate styles of Kobudo kata.
He also doesn't mention why Shorin doesn't contain Sanchin, Seisan or Sanseiru. He does mention that some Shorin kata can be interpreted with weapons, but because of the limited space in the book, they aren't shown. He also presents the possibility that classic kata were designed and then later deliberately modified to conceal weapon techniques - without one reference of proof on that specific point.
So we have Sai + Uechi kata.
Goju kata are eliminated (but Tensho is used for his hand-grappling since lets face it...Tensho is a cool and intracate kata...although puzzling he trusts Miyagi's form that Miyagi admittedly created himself, but yet disregards forms which Miyagi brings back from China).
not clear why he eliminates the To'on, Kingai-ryu or other nahate version forms...he's likely never seen one. and it only shows Naihanchi so it's unclear of his Shorin knowledge.
which led me to the most burning question...if he can eliminate kata from analysis by dissmissing them based on the quality of their origins...then shouldn't WE use that same criteria for his conclusions?
The only references of his background and training are a mention that he's got 30 years of experience and has worked 15 years on these kata in the book (Sanchin,Seisan,Sanseiru, Tensho and Naihanchi).
15 years.
well, ok...he must have had really good and well known instruction then....
So I tried finding mention where he learned Uechi, Goju, Shorin, & Kobudo ...no luck.
using his own elimination logic, then we shouldn't be using his material as a source.
-I did, however, find in the 'acknowledgement' section, mention of Sensei(s) Martin Johnson, Dave Franks, David Blachford, Roy Smith, Steve Nowaki, Kevin Owen, Kevin Luce, Gary Meglone, Dr. Andy Cundy, Dr. Daniel Langton, Dr. Robert Wallis, Dr. Elliot Cohen, and Dr. Duncan Thomas.
All fine people, I'm sure...just never heard of them - or perhaps he doesn't mean to acknowledge them as his instructors, but in helping with the book.
If someone can clarify where Nathan Johnson got his 15 years of training in the above Uechi, Goju and Shorin kata and also where his Kobudo training is from....that would help me to get the motivation to read the rest of the book. Thanks.
this review/commentary is in part a continuation of the thread started here:
http://www.fightingarts.com/ubbthreads/s...e=1&fpart=1
first, to be honest - I haven't read the book page by page as of yet. The reason I'm even giving preliminary comment now is because I did take the time to try and find reference in the book to specifics regarding the stated 'myth' and it's main basis of debunking it.
It was easy to find some answers to questions I had, but some answers were really difficult to find or non-exitent. but I'll present now, to let the answers to my questions draw out while I actually read the book thru. now arguments can be presented with page numbers. give me a page number to correct my preliminary thoughts.
surface observation: no footnotes, no citations....but lots of [annotation] - big warning. There was just a 'bibliography' of a relatively few well-known works. as a comparrison, good 5 page articles we read online have twice as many references. for a 400 page book...16 references doesn't cut it (and 2 of which were references to his own earlier works).
The main 'myth' (according to the book):
Quote:
"This book offers irrefutable evidence that key Karate kata, routinely practiced as unarmed self-defense, are, in actuality, weapons kata simply practiced without the weapons!"
Thats the myth he sets out to debunk...or is it the one he tries to prove? also in the book, separate from the myth, are his weaponless interpretations of other select kata - Naihanchi and Tensho. no myth there, just interpretations, and not bad ones, but way too 'soft' IMO. It's like interpreting Karate kata with Wing Chun - not bad, but is it 'original'? His section titled "kobudo" is bizzare...it shows weaponless kata frames of what he calls 'Kobudo Sanchin'...which is indistinguishable from Uechi-Sanchin. so the 'kobudo' section of the book shows no weapons...hmmmm.
and btw, why is it weaponS ? with an "S" ...does that mean he interprets kata with anything other than sai? not mentioned.
The kata he chooses to focus on to go from weaponless to sai translation in the book are Uechi-Sanchin, Uechi Seisan, and Uechi Sanseiru.
His reasoning for choosing Sai as oppossed to say a Bo or Kama is not apparent...I couldn't find it. if someone knows, please inform the thread.
His reasoning for choosing these particular kata is unclear other than by eliminating kata which didn't have commonality with other styles, then further justifying the elimination process by dismissing kata that was apparently imported to Okinawa after Higaonna's death in 1915. Reasoning: Not clear where the kata came from or if it was significantly changed or not for purposes other than it's intended purpose. Example: All of Goju's kata Miyagi suppossedly learned in China after Higaonna's death - therefore they are dismissed from analysis.
so basically he's saying he doesn't interpret these Goju kata with weapons, because it's not clear where the kata came from.
He doesn't mention specifically (as I've not found yet) why Kingai, To'on, Shitoryu or any other Naha-te based versions of his selected kata are not used over the Uechi versions....other than using the well-know fact that Higaonna taught open hand for the opening sequences of Sanchin. (extrapolating from that, he concludes Seisan and Sanseiru must have also been open hand). I'm not sure if he's even seen To'on ryu or Kingai Ryu versions of kata....or even training in legitimate styles of Kobudo kata.
He also doesn't mention why Shorin doesn't contain Sanchin, Seisan or Sanseiru. He does mention that some Shorin kata can be interpreted with weapons, but because of the limited space in the book, they aren't shown. He also presents the possibility that classic kata were designed and then later deliberately modified to conceal weapon techniques - without one reference of proof on that specific point.
So we have Sai + Uechi kata.
Goju kata are eliminated (but Tensho is used for his hand-grappling since lets face it...Tensho is a cool and intracate kata...although puzzling he trusts Miyagi's form that Miyagi admittedly created himself, but yet disregards forms which Miyagi brings back from China).
not clear why he eliminates the To'on, Kingai-ryu or other nahate version forms...he's likely never seen one. and it only shows Naihanchi so it's unclear of his Shorin knowledge.
which led me to the most burning question...if he can eliminate kata from analysis by dissmissing them based on the quality of their origins...then shouldn't WE use that same criteria for his conclusions?
The only references of his background and training are a mention that he's got 30 years of experience and has worked 15 years on these kata in the book (Sanchin,Seisan,Sanseiru, Tensho and Naihanchi).
15 years.
well, ok...he must have had really good and well known instruction then....So I tried finding mention where he learned Uechi, Goju, Shorin, & Kobudo ...no luck.
using his own elimination logic, then we shouldn't be using his material as a source.
-I did, however, find in the 'acknowledgement' section, mention of Sensei(s) Martin Johnson, Dave Franks, David Blachford, Roy Smith, Steve Nowaki, Kevin Owen, Kevin Luce, Gary Meglone, Dr. Andy Cundy, Dr. Daniel Langton, Dr. Robert Wallis, Dr. Elliot Cohen, and Dr. Duncan Thomas.
All fine people, I'm sure...just never heard of them - or perhaps he doesn't mean to acknowledge them as his instructors, but in helping with the book.
If someone can clarify where Nathan Johnson got his 15 years of training in the above Uechi, Goju and Shorin kata and also where his Kobudo training is from....that would help me to get the motivation to read the rest of the book. Thanks.
: